filE  DEI!/'"' 


0)f  THE 


M  OF  DEPUTIES 


(A'  TiJE 


'lAL  COF^"" 


'-^  PRINCETON,     N.     J.  <f> 


Division.... 
Section    ...\h\..f^. 


Shelf. Number l.S.G.-B.... 


:'V- ..>-■. -*" 


THE    DEBATES 


OF    THE 


HOUSE  OF  CLERICAL  AND  LAY  DELEGATES 


IN  THE  GENERAL  CONVKNTION  OF  THE 

PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH, 


UNITED   STATES   OF  AMERICA, 

HELD   IN   THE   CITY   OF   NEA\^  YORK, 

1868, 

AS    REPORTED  FOR  "THE   CHURCHMAN"  BY 
ANDREW   J.    GRAHAM. 


HARTFORD: 

CHURCH     PRESS     COMPANY 

1868. 


COR  H-I  G  K  N  n  A . 


Pape  8 — In  every  instance  for  "  Mr.  Gadsden  of  South 
Cai'olina,"  read  "  Rev.  Chas.  Breck  of  Delaware." 

Page  67 — Fifth  paragraph  of  report,  '2d  line,  for  "  wild," 
read  "wide";  last  line  but  one,  stril;e  out  the  word  "filthy." 

Page  98 — After  "  Rev.  Hiram  W.  Beers  offered,"  for 
"  second  resolution,"  road  "  last  resolution";  and  for  "a 
deputy  from  Xew  Hampshire,"  read  "  the  Rev.  J.  F.  Spauld- 
ing  of  Pittsljui'gh." 

Page  104 — For  "  Mr.  Thomas  B.  Lawson  of  Louisiana," 
read  "Rev.  C.  C.  PincUney  of  South  Carolina";  Rev.  CO. 
Pinckney,  'i'Ad  hne,  last  word  "  the  "  should  be  omitted. 

Page  118 — Rev.  Dr.  Mulchahey,  2d  line,  for  "assenting," 
read  "  not  assenting." 

Page  1 28 — Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin  (first .speech),  for  "Eastern 
dioceses,"  read  "  Eastern  diocese." 

Page  134 — Rev.  Dr.  Beardsley,  12tli  line,  for  "parish," 
read  "  township." 

Page  Kill — Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin,  23d  line,  for  "  supremacy 
of,"  read  "supremacy  or";  line  34,  for  "simple,"  read 
"  some." 

Page  144 — Rev.  Dr.  (Joodwin,  2d  line,  for  "or  priest," 
read  "o  priest";  8th  line,  at  end,  for  "  to  be,"  read  "to 
determine  " ;  21st  line,  after  "  guilty,"  add  "  by  a  majority  " ; 
23d  line,  after  "  United  States,"  add  "  by  the  dictum  of 
three  presbyters  out  of  Hve." 

Page  1.52 — Bottom  of  2d  colunm,  Rev.  Dr.  Hulibard 
should  be  made  to  say,  "  We  have  already  referred  to  that 


committee  the  whole  subject  of  the  proper  pointing  of  the 
Book  of  Conimou  Prayer,  and  also  the  restoration  of  words 
left  out  by  mere  clerical  error,  with  instructions  to  report 
on  them  to  the  next  Convention." 

Page  155 — Rev.  Dr.  Haight,  4th  line,  for  "dioceses," 
read  "  divorces." 

Page  155 — Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin,  9th  line,  for  "law,"  read 
"Divine  law." 

Page  157 — In  resolution  offered  by  the  Rev.  James  A. 
Harrold,  2d  line,  for  "propose,"  read  "  prepare"  ;  last  line, 
for  "  should  reverse  the  Sectionary,"  read  "  lie  requested  to 
revise  the  Lectionary." 

Page  187 — Rev.  James  A.  Harrold,  12th  line,  for  "  initia- 
tion," read  "initiative";  9th  line  from  bottom  of  second 
column,  for  "  duly,"  read  "  daily." 

Page  159 — 8th  line,  Lst  column,  for  "  whereas  morning," 
i-ead  "  whereas  the  order  for  daily  morning." 

Page  166 — Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin,  in  3d  line,  for  "  declined," 
read  "disclaimed";  in  5th  line,  for  "autnorize,"  read  "re- 
commend "  ;  in  7th  line,  for  "  authorize  the,"  read  "  endorse 
their";  in  23d  line,  for  "that,"  read  "in  saying  that." 

Page  174 — 21st  line,  for  "Archbishop  Cranmer,"  read 
"  King  Henry  the  8th." 

Page  176 — 1st  column,  in  8th  line,  for  "the  misrepresen- 
tation is,"  read  "  there  is  a  misrepresentation"  ;  in  9th  line, 
for  "  this  is,"  read,  "  these  resolutions  of  the  minority  are"  ; 
in  18th  line,  for  "considerable,"  read  "an  excessive  ritual- 
ism "  ;  in  27th  line,  for  "  in,"  read  "  and." 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  CONVENTION. 


^; 


A  List  of  the  Members  of  the  House  of  Clerical  and 

Lay  Deputies  of  the  General  Convention 

OF  18C8. 


Clerical  Deputies. 
Alabama. 
Rev.  John  M.  Mitoliell, 
"      John  M.  Banister, 
"     Francis  R.  Hanson, 
"      Henry  N.  Pierce,  D.  D. 

Cal/fot'nia. 

Rev.  Christo'plier  B.  Wvatt, 

"     Thos.   W.   Bvotherton, 

"      Elias  Birdsall, 

"      Densmore  D.  Cliapin. 

Connecticut. 
Rev.  Wm.  C.  Meati,  D.  D., 
"      E.  E.  Beardslev,  D.  D., 
"      R.  A.  Hallam.D.  D., 
"      J.  L.  Clark,  D.  D. 

Delaware. 
Rev.  Charles  Brecl;, 
"     J.  B.  Clemson,  D.  D., 
"      J.  Lcighton  Mr  Kim, 
"      T.  Gardiner  Littell. 

Florida. 
Rev.  J.  Jackson  Scott,  D.  D., 
"      W.  Trebell  Saunders, 
"     James  A.  Hariold, 
"      Francis  R   Starr. 

Georcfia. 

Rev.  William  H.  Clarke, 

"      Wni.  C.  Williams. 

"      Samuel  Benedict, 

"     H.  Kollock  Rees. 

lUinoiti,^ 
Rev.  Clinton  Locke,  D.  D., 
"      Wari'eu  H.  Rol>erts, 
"      J.  H.  Kvlauce  ,D.  D. 
"      Sidney  Corbett, 

Indiana. 
Rev.  Thomas  M.  Martin, 
"      11.  Strinj,'lellow,  Jr., 
"      Wm.  H.  Carter,  LL.  D., 
"      William  Lusk,  Jr. 

Iowa. 
Rev.  Isaac  P.  Labagli, 
"      George  W.  Watson, 
"      Richard  L.  Gantcr, 
"      H.  N.  Powers,  D.  D. 

7vrt/t.S'rt.s". 
Rev.  Archibald  Bcattv, 
"      Charles  Reynolds,  D.  D. 
"      John  Bakewell, 
"      J.  Mills  Keudrick. 

Kentucky. 
Rev.  J.  N.  Norton,  D.  D., 
"      James  Craik,  D.  D., 
"      J.  S.  Shipman, 
"      Edmund  T.  Perkins. 


Lay  Deputies. 
Alabama. 
Mr.  Henry   A.  Schroeder, 
"    N.  H.  R.  Ilawson,  I 

"    John  D.  Phelan, 
"    George  A.  Gordon. 

California. 
Mr.  H.  T.  Graves, 
"     B.  H.  Randolph, 
"     J.  W.  Hammond, 
"    Daniel  S.  Turner. 

Connecticut. 
Mr.  Wm.  Samuel  Johnson, 
"    0.  S.  Seymour,  LL.  D., 
"    Cl'.arles  A.  Lewis, 
"    Andrew 'L.  Kidston. 

Delaware. 
Mr.  William  T.  Read, 
"    Franklin  Fell, 
"    James  Brown, 
"    S.  Miuot  Curtis. 

Florida. 
Mr.  Robert  Walker, 
"    Daniel  S.  Oakley, 
*'    Columbus  Di'cw, 
"    D.  C.  Dawkins. 

Georgia. 
Mr.  L.  N.  Whittle, 
"    W.  S.    Bogart, 
"    R.  D.  Moore,  M.  D., 
"  II.  M.  Anderson. 

Illinoin. 
Mr.  (Jcorge  P.  Lee, 
"    L.  B.  Otis, 
"    Daniel  W.   Page, 
"    Samuel  H.  Treat. 

Indiana. 
Mr.  J.  S.  Irwin,  M,  D., 
"    Wm.  H.  Morrison, 
"    John  B.  Howe, 
"    Morris  S.  Johnson. 

loiea. 
Mr.  George  Greene, 
"    John  Hodgdon, 
"    James  Armstrong, 
"    William  F.  Ross. 

Ka7tsa.'i. 
Mr.  William  H.  Canfield, 
"    E.  M.  Bartholow, 
"    Ambrose  Todd, 
"    C.  C.  Parsons. 

Kentucky. 

Mr.  J.  W.  Stevenson, 

"    Wm.  Cornwall, 

"    S.  B.  Churchill, 

"    A.  11.  Churchill. 


Louisiana. 
Rev.  Thos.  B.  Lawson, 
"      Wm.  F.  Adams, 
"     T.  R.  B.  Trader, 
"      J.  F.  Girault. 

Alainc. 
Rev.  Ed.  Ballard,  D.  D., 
"      Daniel  Goodwin, 
"      William  P.  Tucker, 
"      Edward.  A.  Bradley. 

Mari^land. 
Rev.  Wm.  Piukuey,  D.  D., 
"      Milo  Mahan,  D.  D., 
"      John  Crosdale, 
"      Erastus  F.  Dasliiell. 

Mu.'f.'iacli  uscUs. 

Rev.  F.  D.  Huntington, D.D., 

"      S.  P.  Parker,  D.  D., 

"      J.  Mulchahey,  D.  D., 

"      Wm.  H.  Mills. 

Michigan. 
Rev.  G.  D.  Gillespie, 
"      J.  P.  Tustin,  D.  D., 

B.  11.  Paddock,  D.  D., 
"      Thos.  C.    Pitkin,  D.  D. 

Minnesota. 

Rev.  S.  Y.  McMasters,  D.  D., 

"      S.  W.   Manney,  D.   D., 

"       D.    B.   Knickcrbacker, 

"      Edward  R.  Welles,  D.  D. 

Mississippi. 
Rev.  James  J.  Pickett, 
•'      Win.   C.   Crane,  I).  1),, 
"      Heurv  Sanson,  D.   D., 
"      C.  B.'  Daua,  D.   D. 

Missouri. 
Rev.  E.  F.  Berkley,  D.  D., 
"      W.  B.  Corbyn,  D.  D., 
"      F.  B.  Scheetz. 
"      E.  C.  Hutchinson, D.D., 

Nebraska. 
Rev.  John  G.  Gasmaun, 
*'      (n'orge  C.  Belts, 
"      Charles  H.  Rice', 
"      Samuel  D.  Hinman. 

Neil)  Ilampslnrc. 
Rev.    1.5 (i.  llubhar.i,  D.   D. 
"      J.  11,  Fames,  D.  D., 
"      C.  Ingles  Chapin, 
"  _   Francis  Chase, 


Louisiana. 
Mr.  P.  Lansdale  Cox, 
"    Robert  Mott, 
"    George  S.  Lacey, 
"    J.  H.  Keep. 

Maine. 
Ml'.  James  Bridge, 
"    Henry  lng;dls, 
"    G.  E.  B.  Jackson, 
"    Robert  H.  Gardiner. 

Maryland. 

Mr.  Wm.  (J.  Ilarrison, 

"    Daniel  M.  Henry, 

"    Wm.  S.  Walker. 

"    Fred.  W.  Brune. 

Massachusetts. 
Mr.  Amos  A.  Lawrence, 
"    B.  R.  Curtis,  LL.  D., 
[  "    John  B.  Stebbius, 
Dr.   G.  C.  Shattuck. 

a  Michigan. 

'Mr.  Henry  A.  Hayden, 

"    C.  C.  Trowbridge, 

"    Peter  E.  Demill, 

"    W.  N.  Carpenter. 

Minnesota, 
Mr.  Eli  T.  Wilder, 
"    Lorenzo  Alli.s, 
"    Isaac  Atwater, 
"    Isaac  G.  Cuininius. 

Mississippi. 
Mr.  John  Duncan, 
"    Wm.  T.  Balfour,  M.  D., 
"    T.  E.  B.  Pegues, 
"    Claudius  W.  Sears. 

Mi*isouri. 
Mr.  II.  I.  Bodley,! 
"    George  H.  Gill, 
'*    Joliu  T.  Douglass, 
"    William  Wallace. 

Nebraska. 
Mr.  .1.  M.  Woolworth, 
"    Julian  Metcalf, 
"    T.  S.  Clarkson, 
"    J.  W.  Van  Nostraad. 

New  Hampshire. 

Mr.  Charles  A.  TuH't.s, 

"    Wm.  P.  Wheeler, 

"    Arnold  Briggs, 

"    Albert  N.  Hatch. 


New  iersey. 
Rev.  A.  Stubb.s,  1).  P., 
"      J.  S.  B.  Ilodg.'s,  D.  D., 
"      R.  M.  Abercrombie,  D.D. 
"      Spencer  M.  Rice. 

Nni}  York. 
Rev.  B.  1.  Haight,  D.  D., 
"      A.N.  Littlejohn,  D.  1)., 
"      Wm.  Payne,  1).  1)., 
"      Samuel  Cooke,  D.  U. 


New  Jcrsei^. 
Mr.  J.  H.  Thompsmi,  M.  D  . 
"    J.  C.  Garthwaite, 
"    R.  S.  Couover, 
"    Henry  Meigs,  Jr. 

New   York. 
Mr.  S.  B.  Kuggles,  LL.  D., 
"    Hamilton  Fish,  LL.  D., 
"    Orlando  Meads, 
"  H.  E.  Pierrepont. 


North  Carolina. 

Rev.  R.  S.  Mason,  D.  D., 

"      A.  A.  Watson,  D.  D., 

"      J.  B.  Cheshire,  D.  D., 

"      F.  M.  Hubbard,  D.  D. 

Ohio. 
Rev.  Erastus  Burr,  D.  D., 
"      Samuel  Clements, 
"      William  Newton, 
"      John  Ufford,  D.  D. 

Pemiiiylvania. 
Rev.  M.  A.  De  W.  Howe.D.  D., 
"      D.  R.  Goodwin,   D.  D., 
"      G.  E.  Hare,  D.  D., 
"     A.  Augustus  Marple. 

Pittsburgh. 
Rev.  Marison  Byllesby, 
"      John  Scarborough, 
"      John  F.  Spaulding, 
"      William  White. 

Rhode  hland. 
Rev.  H.  Waterman,  D.  D., 
"      S.  A.  Crane,  D.  D., 
"      Daniel  Henshaw, 
"      Wm.  S.  Child. 

South  Carolina. 
Rev.  C.  C.  Pinckney, 
"      C.  P.  Gadsden, 
"      Peter  J.  Shand, 
"      J.  Stuart  Hanckel. 

Tennessee. 
Rev.  Wm.  Crane  Gray, 
"      James  Moore, 
"      J.  T.  Wheat,  D.  D., 
"      G.  W.  James. 

Texas. 
Rev.  Benjamin  Eaton, 
"      Joseph  Cross,  D.  D., 
"      Benj.  A.  Rogers, 
"      W.  R.  Richardson. 

Vermont. 
Rev.  A.  H.  Bailey,  D.  D., 
"      J.  Isham  Bliss, 
"      R.  S.  Howard,  D.   D., 
"      Charles  S.  Hale. 

Virginia. 
Rev.  G.  H.  Norton,  D.  D., 
"      Wm.  Sparrow,  D.  D., 
"      J.  Peterkiu,  D.  D,, 
"      C.  W.  Andrews,  D.  D. 

Western   New  York. 
Rev.  Wm.  Shelton,  D.  D., 
"      Theo.  Babcock,  D.  D., 
"      E.  M.  Van  Deusen, 
"      Jas.  Rankine,  D.  D. 

\Visco?isi?i. 
Rev.  Wm.  Adams,  D.  D., 
"      J.  De  Koven,  D.  D., 
"      Franklin  R.  Haff, 
"      Hiram  W.  Beers. 


North  Carolina. 
Mr.  W.  H.  Battle,  LL.  D., 
"    Richard  H.  Smith, 
"    A.  J.  De  Rossett, 
"    Robert  Strange. 

Ohio. 
Mr.  J.  W.  Andrews, 
"    Columbus  Delano, 
"    V.  B.  Horton, 
"    A.  H.  Moss. 

Pennsylvania. 
Mr.  J.  N.  Convngham, 
"    William  Welsh, 
"    George  L.  Harrison, 
"    Lemuel  Coffin. 

Pittsburgh. 
Mr.  J.  H.  Shoenberger, 
"    George  W.  Cass, 
"    Thomas  M.  Howe, 
"    B.  B.  Vincent. 

Rhode  Island. 
Mr.  Robert  H.  Ives, 
"  C.  B.  Farusworth, 
"    George  L.  Cooke, 
"    H.  H.  Burrington. 

South   (JaroUna. 
Mr.  Edward  McCrady, 
'*    J.  J.  Pringle  Smith, 
"    Alexander  C.  Haskell, 
"    Henry  D.  Lesesne. 

Tennessee. 
Mr.  Francis  B.  Fogg, 
"    William  H,  Stephens, 
"    Geo.  R.  Fairbanks, 
"    John  Francis  Jett. 

Texas. 
Mr.  E.  B.  Nichols, 
"    James  H.  Cutler, 
"    Wm.  B.   Grimes, 
"    Thomas  Freeman. 

Vermont. 
Mr.  R.  Richardson, 
"    Julius  E.  Higgins, 
"    Janu's  H.  WiUianis, 
"    Geo.  F.  Houghton. 

Virginia. 
Mr.  Hugh  W.  Sheffey, 
"    B.  Johnson  Barbour, 
"    J.  J.  Jackson, 
"    N.  H.  Massie. 

]Vestern  New  York. 

Mr.  G.  F.  Comstock, 

"    Thomas  A.  Johnson, 

"    (tco.  (!.  McWhorter, 

"    Laurens  C.  Woodruff. 

Wisoo7isin. 
Mr.  Diiinel  Jones, 
"  'J.Bodwell  Doe, 
"    J.  A.  Helfenstein, 
"    D.  Worthington. 


THE    FIRST    DAY. 

New  York,  Oct.  7,  1868. 

This  being  the  time  and  the  place  appointed  for  the 
meeting  of  the  General  Convention  of  the  Church,  Di- 
vine Service  was  celebrated  in  Trinity  Church. 

Morning  Prayer  was  said  by  the  Kev.  Henry  C.  Pot- 
ter, D.  D.,  Secretary  of  the  House  of  Bishops,  and  the 


Rev.  William  Q.  Ketchum,  M.  A.,  of  the  Diocese  of 
Fredericton,  assisted  in  the  Lessons  by  the  Rev.  Canon 
L.  P.  Balch,  D.  D.,  of  the  Diocese  of  Montreal,  and  the 
Rev.  William  Stevens  Perry,  of  the  Diocese  of  Connec- 
ticut. The  Litany  was  said  by  the  Rev.  M.  A.  De 
Wolfe  Howe,  D.  D.,  of  the  Diocese  of  Pennsylvania. 

The  Communion  service  was  begun  by  the  Rt.  Rev. 
Manton  Eastburn,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  Massachusetts,  the 
Epistle  being  read  by  the  Rt.  Rev.  Thomas  Atkinson, 
D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  Bishop  of  North  Carolina,  and  the  Gos- 
pel by  the  Rt.  Rev.  John  Johns,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  Vir- 
ginia. 

The  Sermon  was  preached  by  the  Rt.  Rev.  Alfred 
Lee,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  Delaware,  from  the  text,  "  He 
that  hath  an  ear,  let  him  hear  what  the  Spirit  saith  unto 
the  Churches."  Rev.  ii.  7.  [This  sermon  is  to  be 
printed.] 

The  Ottertory  sentences  were  read  by  the  Rt.  Rev. 
H.  W.  Lee,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  Iowa,  the  alms  being  re- 
ceived and  placed  on  the  Altar  by  the  Rt.  Rev.  Horatio 
Potter,  D.  D.,  D.  C.  L ,  Bishop  of  New  York. 

The  Prayer  for  Christ's  Church  Militant  was  said  by 
the  Rt.  Rev.  S.  A.  McCoskry,  D.  D.,  D.  C.  L.,  Bishop 
of  Michigan.  The  Rt.  Rev.  C.  P.  Mollvaine,  D.  D.,  D. 
C.  L.,  read  the  E.\hortations  and  the  Confession,  the 
Absolution  being  pronounced  by  the  Rt.  Rev.  B.  B. 
Smith,  D  D.,  the  Presiding  Bishop.  The  Prayer  of 
Consecration  was  said  by  the  Rt.  Rev.  the  Lord  Bishop 
of  Rupert's  Land.  The  Post  Communion  was  said  by 
the  Rt.  Rev.  Henry  C.  Lay,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  Bishop  of 
Arkansas,  the  Benediction  being  pronounced  by  the  Rt. 
Rev,  the  Presiding  Bishop. 

After  the  conclusion  of  public  worship,  the  Testi- 
monials of  the  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  elect  were  re- 
ceived and  recorded. 

The  Roll  was  then  called,  and  it  was  found  that  Dep- 
uties were  present  from  a  majority  of  the  Dioceses,  as 
required  by  Article  L  of  the  Constitution. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  L.  B.  Otis, 

Hesdlved,  That  the  House  proceed  to  the  election  of 
a  President. 

On  behalf  of  the  Deputation  from  Illinois,  Mr.  Otis 
nominated  the  Rev.  James  Craik,  D.  D.,  of  the  Diocese 
of  Kentucky. 

There  being  no  other  nomination,  on  motion  of  Mr. 
William  Welsh,  ballotting  was  dispensed  with,  and  the 
vote  being  taken  vioa  ooce,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Craik  was  de- 
clared to  be  unanimously  elected,  and  the  Rev.  Wm. 
Cooper  Mead,  D.  D.,  and  Mr.  L.  B.  Otis  were  appointed 
a  Committee  to  conduct  him  to  the  Chair. 

Before  taking  the  Chair,  the  President  addressed  the 
House  as  follows : 

I  ihauk  you,  gentlemen,  for  this  expression  of  your  con- 
fidence, when  my  deficiencies  in  the  administration  of  this 
office  are  known  to  so  many  of  you. 

It  would,  I  think,  bo  unpardonable  in  me,  at  this  junc- 
ture, not  to  give  some  voice  to  the  feehiig  which  is  welling 
up  in  every  heart  in  this  assembly,  of  joyful  gladness,  and 
of  devout  gratitude  to  God,  that  we  are  all  here  together 


once  more,  as  in  the  old  time,  a  band  of  brothers,  with  one 
heart  and  one  mind  to  take  eounscl  tor  tlie  sood  estate  of 
Christ's  Church.  This  is  the  eonsuniniatiou  and  the  crown 
of  our  long  sustained  effort  to  vindicate  the  integrity  of  the 
Church  of  God, 'as  a  liingdom  not  of  this  world — a  haven 
of  rest,  a  peaceful  home,  a  refuge  from  the  storms  and  tem- 
pests and  tyrannies  of  the  world,- — a  kingdom  that  cannot 
be  moved. 

The  Church  indeed  is  here  in  her  integrity,  entire  and 
unharmed.  But  alas!  we  sadly  miss  from  this  her  great 
representative  Council  some  of  tlie  ablest  and  most  trusted 
of  the  leaders  of  the  host  of  God.  Since  our  last  meeting, 
the  faithful  Pastor,  the  profound  canonist,  the  learned  jnd 
eloquent  Francis  L.  Hawks,  whose  fervent  words  of  power 
never  failed  to  thrill  and  move  the  hearts  of  all  who  heard 
him,  has  gone  from  hard  service  to  a  blessed  reward. 

My  noble  friend,  the  patriot  Statesman,  pure  and  unsul- 
lied, Washington  Hunt,  who  gave  all  his  great  powers  so 
unreservedly  to  the  saci-ed  cau.<e  of  Christ,  he  too  has  been 
taken  from  earthly  labor  to  heavenly  rest. 

Judge  Chambers,  with  his  clear  and  discriminating  mind 
and  untiring  devotion  to  the  interests  of  Christ's  kingdom, 
was  for  more  than  a  generation  the  consummate  guide  of 
the  legislation  of  the  Church.  Kone  who  heard  it  will  ever 
forget  the  beauty,  dignity  and  pathos  of  that  prophetic 
farewell  with  which  he  parted  from  the  House  of  Deputies 
at  the  close  of  the  last  General  Convention.  Hugh  Davey 
Evans,  the  strong,  plain,  downright  old  man,  illustratmg 
with  clear  logic  every  important  subject  brought  into  this 
House,  he,  too,  will  be  no  more  seen  on  earth.  Who 
will  occupy  the  places  of  these  great  and  good  servants  of 
the  Master,  and  enter  into  their  labors!  Although  indeed 
they  are  absent  from  us  in  the  body,  yet  by  the  mighty 
power  of  the  Holy  Ghost  uniting  them  and  us  in  the  mys- 
tical body  of  Christ,  they  are  one  with  us  now  as  ever. 
May  the  same  Holy  Spirit  enable  us  to  emulate  their  virtues 
and  to  follow  their  example. 

On  motion  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Mead, 

Resoleed,  That  the  Hou.se  proceed  to  the  choice  of  a 
Secretary. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Mead  nominated  the  Rev.  William 
Stevens  Perry,  assistant  Secretary  of  the  House  at  the 
last  General  Convention,  and  there  being  no  other 
nomination,  the  vote  was  taken  vioa  voce,  and  Mr.  Perry 
was  declared  unanimously  elected. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Haight  then  announced  the  arrange- 
ments which  had  been  made  for  the  Business  sessions  of 
the  House,  and  moved  that  when  the  House  adjourn  it 
adjourn  to  meet  at  Trinity  Chapel  to-morrow  morning, 
at  10  o'clock,  which  motion  was  carried. 

On  motion  of  the  same, 

Resiilvid,  That  the  daily  sessions  of  the  House  begin 
at  10  A.  M  ,  and  continue  until  4  P.  M. 

On  motion  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Liltlejohn, 

Resolved,  That  a  Committee  be  appointed  to  inform 
the  House  of  Bishops  of  tlie  Organization  of  this  House, 
and  of  its  readiness  to  proceed  to  business. 

The  Chair  appointed  the  Rev.  Dr.  Liltlejohn  and  the 
Hon.  S.  B.  Ruggles  such  Conuniltee. 
On  motion  of  the  lion.  Hamilton  Fish, 

Resolved,  That  the  Rules  of  Order  of  the  House  of 
Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  of  the  last  General  Conven- 
tion be  adopted  as  the  Rules  of  this  lIou.se  until  others 
are  provided. 

The  following  message  was  received  from  the  House 
of  Bishops: 


Message  No.  1. 

The  House  of  Bishops  informs  the  House  of  Clerical 
and  Lay  Deputies  that  it  has  organized,  and  is  ready  to 
proceed  to  business. 

Hknry  C.  Potter,  Sec'y. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  L.  B.  Otis, 

Resolved,  That  the  President  appoint  the  following 
Standing  Committees,  viz. : 

On  the  State  of  the  Church,  to  consist  of  one  mem- 
ber from  each  Diocese, — and  on  the  General  Theological 
Seminary;  on  the  Domestic  and  Foicign  Missionary  So- 
ciety ;  on  the  Admission  of  New  Dioceses;  on  the  Con- 
secration of  Bishops;  on  Canons;  on  Expenses;  on 
UnBuished  Business;  on  Elections;  on  the  Prayer  Book; 
and  on  Christian  Education, — each  to  consist  of  eleven 
members. 

The  Secretary  announced  that  he  had  appointed  the 
Rev.  J.  S.  B.  Hodges,  D.  D.,  a  Clerical  Deputy  from 
New  Jersey,  the  Assistant  Secretary,  which  appoint 
ment  was,  on  motion  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Mead,  unanimous- 
ly confirmed  by  the  House. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  AVilliam  Welsh,  the  House  then 
adjourned. 

THU    SECOND    DAY. 

October  8th,  1868. 

The  House  met  pursuant  to  adjournment,  in  Trinity 
Chapel,  in  25th  street. 

The  Morning  Prayers  were  read  by  Bi.shop  Talbot 
of  Indiana,  and  Bishop  Neely  of  Maine.  The  Benedic- 
tion was  pronounced  by  Bishop  Smith,  the  presiding 
Bishop. 

The  Convention  was  call  d  to  order  by  the  Rev. 
James  Craik,  D.  D. 

The  roll  was  called  by  the  Secretary,  William 
S.  Perry. 

The  minutes  of  yesterday's  proceedings  were  then 
read,  and  approved  on  motion  of  Dr.  Mead. 

Dr.  LiTTLE.jOHN,  of  the  Committee  to  report  to  the 
House  of  Bishops  the  Organization  of  the  House  of  Cler- 
ical and  Lay  Deputies,  reported  that  they  had  performed 
their  duty. 

The  President  announced  the  Committees  given  below 
in  List  of  Standing  Committee. 

STANOINO    ('OM.MITTEKS. 

State  of  till'  C'/iurc/i— The  Revs.  R.  A.  Hallam,  D.  D., 
Conn.;  t,  Urotherton,  Cal. ;  .].  R  Clemson,  D.  I).,  Del. ; 
W.  11.  Roberts,  111. ;  Horace  Stringfellow,  jr.,  Ind. ;  H.  X. 
I'owiTs,  I).  D.,  Iowa;  Charles  Revnolds,  Kansas;  J.  S. 
ShiiiiiMui,  Kv.  ;  Ed.  liallard,  1).  V'.,  Me.;  E.  F.  Da.shiell, 
Md. ;  W.  11.  Mills,  Mass. ;  G.  U.  Gillespie,  D.  D.,  Mich. ;  E. 
R.  Wells,  Minn. ;  E.  F.  Berkeley,  D.  D.,  Mo. ;  J.  H.  Eame.s, 

D.  D.,  i\.  H. ;  S.  M.  Rice,  N.  J. ;  Wni.  I'ayne,  D.  D.,  N. 
Y. ;  .1.  B.  Cheshire,  D.  D.,  N.  C.  ;  E.  Burr,  D.  D.,  Ohio;  G. 

E.  Hare,  I).  I).,  Penn.  ;  S.  A.  Crane,  D.  D.,  R.  I. ;  J.  T. 
Wheat,  D.  D.,  Tenn. ;  R.  S.  Howard,  D.  D.,  Vt. ;  T.  Bab- 
cock,  I).  D.,  W.  N.  Y. ;  F.  R,  Half,  Wis. ;  M.  Bvllesbv, 
Pittsburgh  ;  C.  W.  Andrews,  D.  D.,  Va. ;  C.  C.  Piiickney, 
S.  C. ;  Sanniel  Benedict,  Ga. ;  J.  J.  Scott,  D.  D.,  Fla. ;  J. 
M.  Mitchell,  Ala.;  Wm.  C.  Crane,  D.  D.,  Miss;  Thomas 
K.  Li.  Trader,  La.;  .Joseph  Cross  ,D.  D.,  Texas. 


Consecration  of  Bishops — The  Rev.  S.  Cooke,  D.  D.,  New 
Vork ;  J.  H.  Rylance,  D.  D.,  Illinois ;  E.  F.  Berlder,  D.  D., 
Missouri ;  R.  M.  AbercTOiubie,  D.  D.,  New  Jersey ;  C.  Breek, 
Delaware  ;  G.  H.  Norton,  D.  D.,  Virginia  ;  Mr.  Lemuel;Coi'- 
tin,  Pennsylvania;  W.  G.  Harrison,  Maryland;  J.  J.  Prin- 
gle  Smith,  S.  C. ;  V.  B.  ilorton,  Ohio  ;  A.  B.  Churchill,  Ky. 

(Jnjinished  Buxiness — The  Rev.  W.  T.  Saun  Jers,  Florida  ; 
E.  A.  Bradley,  Maine ;  W.  C.  Gray,  Teiine.-isee ;  W.  H. 
Clarke,  Georgia  ;  J.  Scarborough,  Pittsburgli ;  E.  T.  Perkin.s, 
Kentucky;  Messrs.  C.  B.  Funisworth,  Rhode  Island;  L.  C. 
Woodruff,  Western  New  York ;  E.  M.  Bartholow,  Kan- 
sas ;  W.  P.  Wheeler,  New  Hampshire ;  D.  S.  Turner  ,  Cal. 

Domestic  and  Foreign  Missionary  Society — Revs.  A.  N. 
Littlejohn,  D.  U.,  New  York  ;  J.  L.  Clark,  D.  D.,  Connecti- 
cut; H.  Waterman,  D.  D.,  Rhode  Island  ;  F.  D.  Huntington, 
D.  D.,  Massacliusetts;     Chnton    Locke,   D.   D.,   IlUuois;     C. 

C.  Pinckney,  S.  C. ;  Messrs.  C.  C.  Trowbridge,  Mich. ;  W. 
Cornwall,  Ky. ;  W.  Welsh,  Peuu.sylvania ;  J.  II.  Schoen 
berger,  Pittsburgh ;  E.  T.  Wilder,  Minnesota. 

A'lections—ReYn.  J.  S.  B.  Hodges,  D.  D.,  N.  J. ;  Isaac  G. 
Hubbard,  D.  U.,  N.  H.  ;  C.  P.  Gadsden,  S.  C. ;  H.  N. 
Pierce,  D.  D.,  Ala;  H.  W.  Beers,  Wis. ;  W.  C.  WiUiams, 
Ga;  Messrs.  R.  H.  Ives,  Rhode  Island;  R.  Richardson, 
Vermont;  T.  M.  Howe,  Pittsburgh ;  W.  T.  Read,  Delaware  ; 
H.  I.  Bodley,  Missouri. 

General  Tlieological  Seminary — The  Revs.  Wm.  Sheltou, 

D.  D.,  W.  N.  Y. ;  A.  Stubbs,  D.  D.,  N.  J. ;  S.  W.  Manney, 
I).  D.,  Minn.  ;  A.  H.  Bailey,  D.  D.,  Vt. ;  D.  R.  Goodwin,  D. 
D.,  Pa. ;  C.  B.  Wyatt,  Cal. ;  Me.ssrs.  H.  E.  Pierrepont,  N.  Y.  ; 
(J.  L.  Harrison,  Pa. ;  C.  A.  Tufts,  N.  H. ;  H.  A  Hayden, 
Mich. ;  R.  H.  Smith,  N.  C. 

Canons— T:\iii.  Revs.  W.  C.  Meade,  D.  D.,  Conn. ;  B.  I., 
Haight,  D.  D.,  N.  Y. ;  Milo  Mahan  D.  D.,  Md. ;  A.  A.  Wat- 
sou,  D.  D.,  N.  C. ;  B.  H.  Paddock,  D.  D.,  Mich.  ;  M.  A.  De 
\V.  Howe,  Penn.  ;  Messrs.  Hamilton  Fish,  N.  Y. ;  J.  N. 
Conyngham,  Penn. ;  L.  B.  Otis,  111. ;  B.  R.  Curtis,  Mass. ; 
F.  B.  Fogg,  Teun. 

Christian  A'diwatiun— The  Revs.  J.  DeKoven,  D.  D.,AVis. ; 
F.  M.  Hubbard,  D.  D.,  N.  C. ;  J.  S.  Hauckel,  S.  C. ;  J.  Ran- 
kine,  D.  D.,  W.  N.  Y. ;  T.  M.  Martin,  Ind.  ;  H.  X.  Pierce,  D. 
D.,  Ala. ;  Mes.srs.  G.  C.  Shattuck,  Mass,  ;  G.  R.  Fairbanks, 
Tenn;  J.  W.  Stevenson,  Ky. ;  Wni.  H.  Battle,  LL.  D.,  N. 
C. ;  A.  L.  Kidston,  Conu. 

Prayer  iJou/t— Revs.  R.  S.  Mason,  U.  D.,  N.  C. ;  W. 
Adams,  D.  D.,  Wis. ;  W.  Pinkney,  D-  H.,  Md. ;  S.  P.  Par- 
ker, D.  D.,  Mass. ;  E.  M.  Van  Hcuseu,  D.  H.,W.  N.  Y. ;  Isaac 
•  G.  Hubbard,  D.  D.,  N.  H. ;  Me.ssrs.  Orlando  Meads,  N.  Y..; 
J.  C.  Garthwaite,  N.  J. ;  G,  E.  B.  Jackson,  Me.  ;;,0.  S.  Sey- 
mour, Conn. ;  J.  J.  Jackson,  Va. 

Jixpenses — Revs.  W.  S.  Child,  R.  I.;  S.  Clements,  Ohio; 
W.  C.  Crane,  .Miss.;  E.  Birdsall,  Cal.;  C.  S.  Hale,  Vt. ;  W. 
H.  Carter,  LL.  D.,  Ind. ;.  Messrs.  J.  Brown,  Del. ;  G.  Greene, 
Iowa;  J.  B.  Stebbins,  Mass.;  J.  B.  Doe,  Wis.;  G.  P.  Lee, 
Illinois. 

On  New  Dioceses — The  Revs.  Thomas  C.  Pitkin,  D.  D., 
Michigan;  William  B.  Corbyn,  D.  D.,  Missouri;  Jacob  S. 
Sliipmau,  Iveutucky ;  Josluia  Peterkin,  D.  D.,  Virginia; 
Peter  J.  Shanil,  South  Carolina;  E.  Edwards  Beardsley,  D. 
D.,  Connecticut;  Mes.srs.  Samuel  Ruggles,  LL.  D.,  New 
York  ;  George  C.  McWhorter,  Western  New  York ;  Henry 
Meigs,  jr..  New  Jersey;  L.  N.  Whittle,  Georgia;  T.  E.  B. 
Pegues,  Mississippi. 

Dr.  Mead  asked  leave  to  present  the  petition  of  the 
newly-organized  Diocese  of  Nebraska,  asking  for  ad- 
mission into  union  with  the  General  Convention  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  ;  and 
he  moved  that  the  petition  be  referred  to  the  Committee 
on  New  Dioceses. 

Dr.  LiiTLEjOHN — Mr.  President:  As  this  petition 
lias  now  been  presented  to  the  House  with  a  view  to 
refer  it  to  the  Committee  on  New  Dioceses,  I  deem  it  prop- 
er to  present  a  few  statistics  touching  the  growth  of  that 
infant  Diocese  which  now  applies   for  admission  to  this 


body.  It  will  be  seen  by  a  bare  reading  of  these  statis- 
tics, that  not  only  a  great  work  has  been  done  in  the 
State  of  Nebraska,  but  that  that  work  has  been  done 
in  such  a  manner — it  has  been  run  in  such  a  mould — as 
to  give  the  most  ample  guarantees  to  the  whole  Church, 
that  as  that  vast  and  multitudinous  emigration  which  I 
saw  one  year  ago  rolling  into  those  plains,  shall  settle 
there,  they  will  find  there  ready  for  use  such  moulds  as 
will  receive  and  fashion,  and  direct  and  shape  to  the 
glory  of  God  and  the  extension  of  His  kingdom  on  earth, 
the'cnergies  of  that  vast  and  growing  population.  When 
Bishop  Clarkson,  who  was  elected  Missionary  Bishop  at 
the  last  Convention,  entered  upon  the  work  of  his  jurisdic- 
tion, he  found  in  Nebraska  three  churches  and  nine 
clergymen.  There  are  now  fifteen  churches  and  701 
communicants.  There  are  two  colleges,  two  academi- 
cal institutions,  one  divinity  school,  and  five  parish 
schools ;  and  the  value  of  the  Church  property  already 
in  that  Diocese  exceeds  $124,000.  I  think  this  shows 
good  work  for  about  two  years  and  eight  months,  of 
which  the  Bishop  of  Nebraska  has  just  reason  to  be 
proud,  and  upon  which  the  representatives  from  that 
Diocese  have  reason  to  congratulate  themselves,  and  to 
receive  the  congratulations  of  this  body. 

The  reference   of  .the  petition  to  the    Committee  on  " 
New  Dioceses  was  then  approved. 

Rev.  Dr.  Adams — Mr.  President :  I  have  a  memo- 
rial to  present  from  the  Diocese  of  Wisconsin  which  was 
passed  at  the  last  Convention,  and  which  was  ordered  to 
be  signed  by  all  the  clergy  and  laity  of  the  Convention. 
Of  this  memorial,  t  am  happy  to  say  that  it  represents 
the  public  opinion  of  a  large  proportion  of  the  West  in 
reference  to  the  obstruction  that  is  oB'ered  to  the  propaga- 
tion of  our  Church  in  this  country.  I  believe  that  this 
Church  derived  fnnn  the  English  Church  is  not  a  sect 
to  bring  in  the  educated  and  refined  only,  but  it  is  and 
must  be  the  Catholic  Church  in  these  United  States ; 
and  I  must  say  that  I  think  we  have  been  shackled  by 
our  obstructive  legislation.  It  is  the  purpose  of  this 
memorial,  to  bring  before  this  National  Council  of  the 
Church  in  the  United  States  the  Fifth  Article  [of  the 
Constitution]  wherein  this  obstructive  legislation  exists 
and  which  has  prevented  the  propagation  of  the  Protes- 
tant Episcopal  Church  through  the  whole  West,  and  is 
injurious  and  obstructive  to  the  Church  in  the  whole 
country.      The  memorial  was  then  read. 

First :  lli'cognizing  the  principles  of  the  See,  and  pro- 
viding  that  there  should  ultimately  be  a  Bishop  of  the 
Church,  with  his  Bishop's  Church  or  Cathedral,  in  every 
city  of  the  laud. 

Second :  When  in  any  Dioce.sc  it  shall  seem  expedient 
to  divide  and  erect  a  new  See,  it  may  be  done  upon  the 
vote  of  a  majority  of  both  Orders,  passed  in  two  consecu- 
tive Conventions,  with  the  approv.al  of  the  General  Conven- 
tion. 

mrd :  That  the  division  of  the  parishes  and  the  assign- 
ment of  limits  between  the  two  Sees  should^be  made  by  mu- 
tual consent,  the  linal  decision  thereof  resting  with  the  Bish- 
ops, clergy,  and  laity  of  the  whole  State,  or  a  Committee  ap- 
pointed by  them. 


[The  memorial  was  published  in  full  in  Thk  Church- 
man at  the  time  of  its  ado])tion.] 

On  motion,  the  memorial  was  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Canons. 

Rev.  Dr.  Maii.\n,  of  Maryland,  read  a  memorial  from 
his  Diocese,  concerning  the  formation  of  Provincial 
Councils,  with  the  following  resolutions. 

Resolved,  That  it  is  the  opinion  of  the  Convention  that  as 
soon  as  may  he  after  the  organization  of  two  or  more  Pio- 
ci'sos  within  the  limits  of  the  present  Diocese  of  Mary- 
laiul,  and  after  the  Ooiiseoration  of  Bishops  for  the  same, 
there  sliall  he  a  Coimeil  of  said  Dioceses,  tliroujjh  their  prop- 
er representative.s,  to  consider  and  adopt  measures  for  a  per- 
manent Synodieal  or  Conventional  Union,  .said  Council  to  con- 
sist of  the  Bishops  of  the  several  Dioceses  into  which  tlie 
present  Diocese  shall  have  been  divided,  with  ten  clerical 
and  ten  lay  deputies  from  tlie  several  Conveutious  of  tlie 
same,  and  to  be  called  at  such  time  and  place  a.s  the  senior 
Bishop,  on  conference  with  his  brethren,  shall  determine. 

Jiexoti'nl,  That  this  Convention  petition  the  next  General 
Convention  for  such  modifications  of  the  (.'oustitutions  and 
canons,  if  any  such  are  ueeded,  as  may  enable  the  Dioceses 
formed  or  to  be  formed  w  ilhin  the  limits  of  any  present  Dio- 
cese, to  organize  among  themselves  a  Synodieal  or  Concil- 
iar  Union. 

Ixexo/ved,  That  this  Convention  also  petition  the  next 
General  Convention  to  take  the  necessary  steps  for  author- 
izing the  erection  of  Provincial  Courts  of  Appeal,  whenever 
it  may  be  desired  by  any  Church  province. 

On  motion,  this  memorial  was  refened  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Canons. 

Dr.  Haigiit  presented  an  application  from  the  Diocese 
of  New  York  for  the  erection  of  two  new  Dioceses,  one 
on  Long  Island,  and  the  other  in  Northern  New  York. 

Referred  to  Committee  on  new  Dioceses. 

Dr.  H.  also  presented  a  memorial  of  the  Diocese  of 
New  York  on  the  subject  of  a  Federate  Council  of  the 
several  Dioceses  within  the  State. 

Referred  to  Committee  on  Canons. 

The  Secretary  announced  the  appointment  of  the  Rev. 
John  M.  Mitchell,  from  the  Diocese  of  Alabama,  as 
second  assistant  Secretary. 

Dr.  Hutchinson  read  papers  concerning  the  election 
of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Robertson  as  the  Bishop  elect  of  Mis- 
souri ;  which  were  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Con- 
secration of  Bishops. 

Dr.  Wheat,  of  Tennessee,  read  a  memorial  from  his 
Diocese  on  the  e-xtent  and  formation  of  Dioceses  ;  which 
was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Canons. 

Mr.  Lkk,  of  Illinois,  read  a  memorial  from  his  Diocese 
in  Illinois,  seconding  the  memorial  from  the  Diocese  of 
Wisconsin. 

Rev.  Mr.  Ckosdale,  of  Maryland,  offered  a  petition 
for  the  division  of  the  Diocese  of  Maryland.  The  peti- 
tion and  accompanyini;  documents  were  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  New  Dioceses. 

Rev.  Dr.  Watson  read  a  memorial  and  resolution 
from  the  Diocese  of  North  Carolina ;  which  were  refer- 
red to  the  Committee  on  Canons. 

On  motion  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Berkley,  Ordered  that  the 
Clergymen  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  and 
Clergymen  of  the  United  Church  of  England  and   Ire- 


land, and  of  the  British  Colonies,  also  of  the  Epi8coi)al 
Church  of  Scotland,  who  may  be  sojourning  in  this  city, 
members  of  the  Board  of  Missions  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Cluirch,  Trustees,  Professors  and  Students  of 
the  General  Theological  Seminary,  other  students  of 
Theology  who  are  candidates  for  Holy  Orders  in  this 
Church,  former  members  of  the  House  of  Clerical  and 
Lay  Deputies,  Members  of  the  Vestry  of  Trinity  Church, 
in  the  city  of  New  York,  in  one  of  whose  (^hapels  this 
Convention  holds  its  present  session,  be  admitted  to  the 
sittings  of  this  House. 

Rev.  W.  H.  Ci.AUKE,  of  Georgia,  read  a  memorial  from 
the  diocese  of  Georgia  in  favor  of  changing  the  name 
Convention.     Referred  to  the  Committee  oh  Canons. 

Rev.  Dr.  Ckoss,  of  Texas,  read  a  memorial  from  Texas 
with  reference  to  limiting  the  extent  of  Dioceses  so  as  to 
secure  proper  episcopal  oversight. 

Dr.  Bekklev,  ofl'ered  a  resolution  to  provide  members 
of  the  House  with  400  copies  of  a  list  of  Deputies  with 
their  residence  in  the  city,  a  list  of  the  Standing  Com- 
mittees, and  the  Rules  of  Order.     Adopted. 

A  recess  of  20  minutes  was  then  taken. 

Dr.  Goodwin,  offered  a  resolution  to  print  3,000  copies 
of  the  sermon  preached  at  the  opening  of  the  Conven- 
tion.   An  amendment  to  print  1,500  copies  was  accepted 

Mr.  Wallach,  of  St.  Louis,  moved  to  lay  the  resolu- 
tion on  the  table. 

Dr.  Mead — It  has  been  the  practice  to  publish  the 
sermon  at  the  opening  of  the  Convention.  Though  I 
differ  toto  calo  from  the  doctrines  of  that  sermon,  yet 
T  should  be  sorry  to  see  in  this  Convention  the  practice 
initiated  of  laying  on  the  table  a  resolution  to  print  a 
Bishop's  sermon,  when  it  has  been  the  invariable  practice 
to  print  the  sermons  at  the  opening  of  the  Convention. 

The  PiiESiDENT — As  the  motion  to  lay  on  the  table 
the  resolution  to  print,  has  not  been  withdrawn,  there 
can  be  no  debate  to  lay  on  the  table. 

On  the  vote  being  taken,  the  President  declared  the 
motion  to  be  lost,  so  the  question  recurred  on  the  reso- 
lution to  print  l,.oOO  copies. 

Mr.  Geo.  R.  Fairbanks  said  that  some  time  the 
question  would  have  to  be  decided  whether  the  Conven- 
tion  should,  by  printing,  give  its  sanction  to  sermons  of  a 
controversial  nature.  The  (juestion  was  fraught  with 
diHiculty  for  the  future.  Therefore,  in  the  outset  it 
would  be  best  to  enter  the  sermon  on  the  Journal  but 
not  to  publish  any  extra  copies.  While  it  was  appro- 
priate to  publish  the  final  address  of  the  Bishops,  as  ex- 
pressing the  views  of  the  Church,  it  was  not  proper  to 
publish  the  opcnin;;  sermon,  because  it  expresses  only 
the  individual  views  of  the  preacher.  If  we  are  bound 
by  the  question  of  courtesy  now,  we  shall  be  equally 
bound  in  the  future  when  it  may  involve  greater  dif- 
ficulty. 

The  President  remarked  that  the  sermon  had  never 
been  printed  in  the  Journal. 


■■■W 


8 


Mr.  Gadsdkn,  of  South  Carolina.     May  I  ask  how  it 
has  been  printed  ? 

Dr.  Mead.     As  a  separate  pamphlet,  by  a  motion  as 
to  the  number  of  copies  to  be  printed. 

Mr.  Gad.sden.     I   understand  from   the  deputy  from 
Connecticut  that  it  ha?  always  been  done. 

Dr.  Mead.     I   say  almost   invariably.     I  do  not  rec- 
ollect where  a  motion  has  not  been  made  to  that  effect. 
Mr.  Gadsden.     Then  I  do  not  see  how  it  is  possible 
to  avoid  publishing  this  sermon.     It  would  be  an  act  of 
discourtesy  to  refuse  to  publish. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haiciht.  If  we  should  ever  change  the  law 
in  regard  to  printing  sermons,  I  would  deprecate  the 
introduction  of  this  resolution  at  this  time.  I  think  it 
would  not  only  be  an  act  of  severe  discourtesy,  but  an 
act  exceedingly  unwise  on  the  part  of  the  majority  of 
this  House  to  pass  any  such  resolution.  We  are  not 
here  to  sit  in  judgment  on  the  doctrines  of  the  sermon  at 
the  opening  of  the  General  Convention.  It  is  our  duty 
to  sit  and  listen  to  it  calmly  and  respectfully.  We  may 
not  approve  its  doctrines,  but  I  think  we  are  bound  at 
least  to  recognize  the  fact  that  the  preacher  is  a  Bishop, 
and  that  he  has  spoken  what  he  believes  to  be  the  truth 
of  God,  and  as  the  preacher  appointed  by  the  Bishops, 
he  ought  to  be  respected  by  a  vote  of  this  House.  I  am 
not  prepared  to  say  whether  or  not  the  rule  in  general 
is  a  good  one.  But  be  it  ever  so  faulty,  I  hope  that 
this  House  will  not  so  far  forget  what  is  due  to  itself  and 
to  the  Bishop  of  Delaware  as  to  pass  any  resolution  de- 
viating from  the  usual  practice  of  this  House. 

Dr.  Goodwin.  The  resolution  proposes  to  legislate 
that  the  sermons  to  future  General  Conventions  shall 
not  be  published.  In  that  respect,  it  is  nothing  but  a  re- 
ijsal  to  print  this.  It,  therefore,  stands  in  the  face  of 
the  uniform  practice  of  the  Convention  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States.  In  ofiering  this 
resolution  I  thought  I  was  making  a  mere  proposition  of 
routine.  I  observed  the  fact  that  it  was  in  the  Journal 
of  the  last  two  Conventions.  I  happened  to  take  up  the 
Journal  of  the  Convention  before  the  last,  and,  there- 
fore, I  proposed  as  it  was  done  there,  3,000  instead  of 
1,500  copies;  but  I  would  as  lief  say  1,500  as  3,000,  sim- 
ply to  accommodate  our  action  to  the  uniform  action  of 
the  Convention.  Shall  we  take  this  opportunity  to  treat 
with  disrespect  one  of  the  honored  Bishops  of  the  Prot- 
estant Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  one  of 
venerable  standing  in  the  House  of  Bishops,  one  who  has 
done  no  wrong,  one  who  has  spoken  what  he  believes  to 
be  true,  in  charity  and  love,  and  one  who  would  be  the 
last  of  all  men  on  the  face  of  the  earth  to  treat  any  man 
with  disrespect  ''"Shall  we  treat  him  with  disrespect  be- 
cause he  has  before  God  and  the  Church  spoken  what 
he  believes  to  be  the  truth,  standing  there  as  the  appoint- 
ed preacher  of  the  House  of  Bishops  ?  Shall  we  treat 
him  with  discourtesy  by  saying  that  his  sermon  shall  not 
be  printed?  I  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  question 
whether  I  agree  or  not  with  the  doctrines  of  the  sermon. 


That  has  been  spoken  of,  and  fully  to  my  satisfaction, 
by  my  Rev.  brother  [Dr.  Mead]  who  preceded  nie. 
Shall  we  sit  in  judgment  upon  the  sermon  to  determine 
whether  we  agree  with  it  in  every  point?  I  am  amazed 
at  the  proposition,  and,  therefore, — sit  down. 

Dr.  Mead.  I  would  say  to  the  members  of  this 
House  that  although  you  may  difier  from  the  doctrines 
or  sentiments,  some  or  many  of  them,  uttered  in  the  ser- 
mon, yet  the  simple  fact  that  it  would  be  an  act  of  dis- 
courtesy to  refuse  to  print  it  is  sustained  by  documents 
which  I  hold  in  my  hands.  Here  is  a  package  of  sermons 
from  1 785,  preached  before  the  General  Convention, 
printed  separately  by  a  vote  of  the  House  of  Deputies. 
If  we  should  now,  under  the  present  circumstances,  re- 
fuse to  print  that  sermon,  we  should  place  ourselves  in  a 
false  position,  before  the  House  of  Bishops,  before  the 
Christian  World— before  the  whole  Church.  And  as  to 
the  resolutions  for  the  future  action  of  the  Convention, 
it  would  be  impossible  to  determine  their  action,  for,  as 
said  the  Reverend  Deputy  from  Pennsylvania,  every 
Convention  manages  its  own  business. 

Mr.  Roggles.  I  hope  the  sermon  will  be  printed.  It 
forms  a  part  of  the  history  of  the  Church,  and  we  want  to 
preserve  a  history  of  all  that  has  been  said  pro  and  con. 
Mr.  Parsons.  I  approve  of  what  has  been  said  by 
the  Reverend  Deputy  from  Pennsylvania.  I  feel  it  my 
duty,  while  I  shall  vote  against  the  printing,  to  say  that 
I  do  not  intend  thereby  any  discourtesj'.  I  shall  vote 
against  it  chiefly  on  the  view  stated  by  the  Deputy  on 
the  other  side  of  the  House  that  the  time  may  come  when 
the  present  formal  action  of  this  House  will  be,  as  a  prec- 
edent, a  cause  of  great  embarrassment.  At  the  same 
time  that  I  vote  against  the  resolution  I  disavow  any  in- 
tentional discourtesy ;  and  I  think  it  is  not  altogether  fair 
to  charge  with  intended  discourtesy  those  who  vote 
against  the  resolution. 

Judge  Conyngham.  It  is  imp6rtant  to  think  what 
we  are  proposing  to  do  under  the  circumstances  present- 
ed by  this  resolution.  As  I  understand,  in  the  regular 
order  of  proceedings,  the  Bishop  was  called  upon  to 
preach  a  sermon.  By  appointment  from  his  brethren, 
he  has  preached  a  sermon  ;  and  the  simple  question  here 
is  whether,  he  having  preached  a  sermon  that  was  listen- 
ed to  by  the  Deputies  here  present  and  a  large  Congre- 
gation there  assembled,  that  sermon  should  be  published 
by  the  authority  of  those  who  listened  to  it  or  not.  It 
will  be  published  ;  and  if  I  desired  particularly  that  it 
should  produce  the  effects  desired  by  those  approving  its 
doctrines,  I  would  wish  especially  that  this  Convention 
should  refuse  to  publish  it.  If  they  should  thus  stigma- 
tize it,  it  would  be  published  far  and  wide.  Regarded 
as  an  act  of  persecution,  its  author  would  be  deemed  a 
martyr,  and  everywhere  persons  would  be  desirous  of 
obtaining  that  sermon  for  the  purpose  of  seeing  what  it 
is.  I  say  to  those  who  oppose  the  publication  of  the 
sermon,  if  you  desire  to  give  it  force — not  the  mere  force 
of  a   formal   and   customary  resolution — put    upon  it  a 


9 


stipnia  by  refusing  to   pass  this  resolution.     Let   it    be 
ailo|)tiil  iu  ihe  ordinary  way.     Do  not    adopt  the   rule  J 
that  vvf  will  sit  in  judgment  upon  overy  sermon  preach- 
ed before  the  General  Convention,  and  that  if  a  Deputy 
objects  to  a  particular  doctrine  enunciated  by  it,  a  Com- 
mittee shall  be  appointed  to  inquire  into  it  and  determine 
whether  or  not  the  sermon  shall  be.  published.     But  let  I 
us  publish  the  sermon  as  a  formal  and  customary  matter.  ' 
That   cannot  be  regarded  as  the  adoption  b}'  the  House 
of  its  doctrines ;  it  is  merely  a  formal  act,  an<l  carrying 
out  the  practice  that  has  always  prevailed.     I  think   we 
ought  to  publish  it  out  of  respect  for  the  Right  Reverend 
Father  in  God  who,  out  of  his  own  conscience,  preached 
that  sermon,  and  also  out  of  respect  to  the  uniform  ac- 
tion of  this  House. 

Rev.  Dr.  Adams  said  he  was  not  a  believer  of  the  doc- 
trines of  the  sermon,  but  out  of  respect  to  a  Bishop  of 
the  Church  he  would  favor  publishing  the  sermon.  He 
hoped  that  no  man  of  right  reason,  and  common  sense, 
and  (ijjostolica! princij'lts,  would  oppose  it.     (Laughter.) 

Mr.  Meigs  approved  of  the  publication  of  both  sides 
of  a  controversy,  and  would  therefore  vote  for  the  reso- 
lution. 

Mr.  Fairbanks  would  vote  agaiiist  the  resolution  with 
no  intention  of  discourtesy  to  the  venerable  father,  but 
with  the  hope  of  getting  rid  of  a  troublesome  precedent 
which  was  likely  to  bind  the  House  for  all  time. 

Dr.  Littlcjohn  called  upon  the  secretary  to  read  an 
extract  from  the  Memoirs  of  Bishop  White,  touching  the 
disposition  made  of  a  sermon  delivered  by  Bishop  Moore 
in  1820.  The  action  taken  by  the  House  of  Lay  Depu- 
ties at  that  time  was  germane  to  the  subject,  and  it  was 
right  that  the  extract  should  be  read  to  the  House. 

The  secretary  lead  from  page  "iS.'i  of  the  Memoirs  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  by  Bishop  White,  sec- 
ond edition,  as  follows: 

The  reception  of  Uisbop  Moore's  sermon  apju-ars  on 
the  journal  iu  ."uch  a  shape  as  requires  explanation.  The 
House  of  Clerical  and  Lav  Deputies  pa.ssed  a  vole  request- 
ing a  co|iv  for  piililicatimi.  The  House  of  Bishops  concur- 
red in  tlie  vote  with  the  addition  of  their  thaniis,  wliich  luid 
been  ouiitted  by  the  otlier  house.  The  reason  was  tiu' 
preacher's  having  made  baptismal  regeneration  one  of  the 
points  of  his  discourse.  Some  of  the  gentlemen,  and 
especially  those  the  most  in  habits  of  friendship  with  him, 
were  displeased  at  this:  and  hence  the  resolve  on  the 
.lournal  of  the  House  of  ('lerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  that  it 
will  lie  inexpedient  hereafter  to  pass  votes  of  (hanks  for 
sermons  deli\ered  hefoi-e  (ieneral  {Conventions,  and  to  re- 
quest copies  for  pu'ilication.  The  author  believi's,  that 
willi  the  majority  of  the  house,  this  resolve  was  owing  nTH 
to  their  dissatisfaction  with  the  doctrine  of  the  liishop 
Moore,  hut  to  their  general  view  of  the  subject  of  voting 
thariks ;  which  may  have  suggested  the  apprehension,  that 
dissatislaclion  with   any  point  in  a  conventional  sermon,  he 


it  even  in  the  minds  of  a  few  members  of  the  body,  may 
excite  all  angry  controversy,  not  having  anv  tendenev  tu 
settle  the  matter  in  question.  In  the  House  of  Bishops  the 
vote  of  thanks  for  the  sermon  was  passed  unanimously. 

So  far  as  the  duty  of  a  conventional  preacher  is  concern- 
ed, the  author  is  of  opinion  that  there  should  he  carefully 
avoided  .all  questions  on  which  the  sense  of  the  Epi.soopal 
Church  is  doubtful. 

The  resolution  was  then  adopted  by  a  nearly  unani- 
mous vote. 

On  motion  of  Gov.  Stevenson  of  Ky., 

Rexolved,  That,  the  House  of  Bishops  con.senting,  a  joint 
Committee  to  consist  of  three  on  the  part  of  this  House  be 
appointed  to  consider  the  f)ropriety  of  .selecting  another 
building  for  the  ilaily  sessions  of   this  ficneral  Convention. 

Dr.  Haight  and  otliers  of  the  New  York  committee 

who  had  selected  Trinity  Chapel  as  meeting  best  the 
wants  of  the  Convention,  all  things  considered,  offered 
no  objection  to  the  appointment  of  the  committee. 

The  resolution  was  adopted,  and  the  president  named 
the  committee. 

The  following  resolution,  offered  by  Dr.  Mahan,  was, 
by  a  rising  vote,  unanimously  adopted: 

Resolved,  That  this  House  place  upon  its  records  the  ex- 
pression of  its  grateful  sense  of  the  eminent  and  long-coi  - 
tinned  services  to  the  Church  of  the  three  venerable  depu- 
ties from  the  Diocese  of  Maryland  taken  to  their  rest  since 
the  last  Convention,  the  late  Hon.  Judge  Ezekiel  F.  Cham- 
bers, LL.  D.,  the  Rev.  Henry  M.  Mason,  D.  D.,  and  Hugh 
Davey  Evans,  LL.  D. 

On  motion  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Pinckney  the  name  of 
John  Henry  Alexander  LL.  D.  was  added. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  George  C.  McWhorter,  the  followins 
resolution  was  also  unanimously  adopted  by  a  rising 
vote: 

Resolved,  That  this  House  place  upon  its  records  this  e.\- 
pression  of  its  grateful  recollection  of  the  higli  Christian 
character  and  valuable  services  in  behalf  of  the  Church,  of 
the  Hon.  Washington  Hunt  of  Western  N.  Y.,  deceased 
since  the  last  General  Convention,  and  for  many  years  a 
member  of  this  House. 

Dr.  Haight  offered  the  following  resolution,  which 
was  unanimously  adopted : 

Resolved,  That  this  House  has  learned  with  deep  regre 
of  the  death  of  the  Most  Rev.  Dr.  Fulford,  Bishop  of  Mon 
treal  and  Metropolitan  of  Canada,  whose  presence  and  ser 
vices  at  the  last  (xend'al  (.'onvention  irave  us  so  much  picas 
ure — and  that  tliis  House  do  connnunicate  to  the  House  ot 
Bishops  its  desire  to  join  with  them  in  such  expression  of 
regard  for  the  departed  Bishop  and  of  respect  tor  his  mem- 
ory as  they  may  see  fit  to  pi'cpai-e. 

Mr.  Ruggles  offered  a  resolution  of  respect  for  the 
late  Rev.  Francis  L.  Hawks,  D.  D.,  which  was  unani- 
mously adopted. 

The  Convention  adjourned  to  to-raorrow  morning,  at 
10  A   M. 


10 


THIKD    day's  proceedings. 

Oct.  9th,  1886. 

The  House  met  pursuant  to  adjournment,  the  Morn- 
ing Prayers  were  read  by  Dr.  McMasters,  of  Minnesota, 
and  Dr.  Gibson,  of  Western  N'ew  York. 

The  Benediction  was  pronounced  by  Bishop  McCos- 
kry,  of  Michigan. 

The  House  was  calh-d  to  order  at  11  o'clock. 

The  names  of  Deputies  not  previously  present  were 
then  called. 

The  journal  of  yesterday's  proceedings  was  read  and 
approved. 

The  president  presented  a  communic  ition  from  the 
Treasurer  of  the  Convention  giving  a  summary  of  his 
■  report ;  which  summary  stated  the  total  disbursements 
.•IS  $8,291.. 5.5,  in  excess  of  receipts,  .$4.17.8.5. 

On  motion  the  account  of  the  Treasurer  was  referred 
to  the  committee  on  e.xpenses. 

The  committee  on  elections  reported  by  its  chairman, 
J.  S.  B.  Hodges,  that  certificates  of  election  to  the  House 
of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  have  been  received  from 
every  Diocese  in  Union  with  this  Convention,  34  in 
number;  that  the  certificates  are  all  in  due  form;  and 
that  they  have  given  accurately  a  list  of  the  names  of 
those  entitled  to  a  seat  as  members  of  the  House,  being 
the  same  as  have  been  entered  on  the  roll  and  called  by 
the  Secretary. 

Rev.  Dr.  Pitkin — from  the  committee  on  New 
Dioceses,  reported  the  following  resolution  : 

Ttexohed,  That  the  Diocese  of  Nebraska  be  and  is  hereby 
admitted  into  full  canonical  union  with  the  I'rotestant  Epis- 
copal Church  in  the  I'nited  States. 

Rev.  Dr.  Pitkin. — added :  The  committee  feel  it 
necessary  to  state  to  the  House  that  the  meeting  in 
which  this  Diocese  was  organized  and  the  Canons  and 
Constitution  adopted  is  called  not  a  Convention  but  a 
Council. 

Hon.  Samuel  B.  RnGor.Es. — As  one  of  that  committee, 
I  think  it  proper  to  state  to  the  House  that  although  the 
action  of  the  convention  did  not  in  all  respects  conform 
to  the  constitution,  still  I  would  consent  to  the  report  so 
far  as  to  bring  it  into  this  House,  that  they  might  now 
distinctly  understand  that  this  new  Diocese  desiring  to 
come  into  the  convention,  has  adopted  a  new  and  signifi- 
cant title  for  their  organization.  This  new  Diocese  and 
convention  calls  itself  the  council  of  that  church,  and  as 
such  asks  admission  to  this  body,  which  is  canonically 
known  as  the  General  Convention  of  the  Church,  and 
which  in  most  or  many  canons  and  in  parts  of  its  con 
stitufion  speaks  of  itself  as  a  convention.  If  we  assume 
that  this  word  Council  is  only  a  synonymous  word  with 
Convention,  then  we  maj'  safely  admit  this  Diocese  into 
union  with  this  body  defined  in  its  constitution  as  a 
convention.  Were  it_  an  original  question  to  change 
the  name  from  convention  to  council,  I  would  be  fully 
prepared  to  do  so  :  I  do  not  like  the  name  convention. 
I  therefore  favored, ^bringing' this  question,  in  this  dis- 


tinct manner,  before  this  convention  to  take  such  order 
as  will  decide  the  question  forever;  and  in  doing  so,  I 
hope  they  will  decide  in  favor  of  admitting  the  Diocese 
without  a  moment's  delay.  I  feel  an  interest  in  the  in- 
troduction of  this  Diocese  into  the  Church. 

Rev.  Dr.  Howe. — I  deem  tliis  question  of  the  utmost 
importance.  I  am  not  particularly  tenacious  of  this  or 
that  name  for  our  assemblies ,  but  after  the  Church  has 
adopted  a  given  name,  it  seems  to  me  that  it  is  not  com- 
petent in  the  several  Dioceses  to  adopt  other  names  for- 
if  one  may  adopt  the  name  council,  another  Diocese  may 
call  icself  a  conference,  another  ma)'  call  itself  an  assem- 
bly, and  another  may  call  itself  a  synod ;  and  we  shall 
have  a  motley  set  of  names.  Moreover,  if  the  name  may 
be  changed  in  that  particular,  it  may  be  altered  in -other 
respects.  There  are  members  of  this  Church  who  are 
very  fond  of  calling  it  the  reformed  Catholic  Church ; 
and  by  and  by,  we  may  have  a  Diocese  coming  in  and 
calling  itself  the  convention  of  the  reformed  Catholic 
Church.  I  hope  that,  while  the  Diocese  is  admitted,  it 
will  be  expected  of  it  and  all  other  Dioceses  that  they 
will  conform  in  their  designation  to  the  terms  which  this 
Church  has  adopted  lor  the  designation  of  its  respective 
parts.  If  that  nomenclature  is  to  be  altered,  I  shall 
very  cheerfully  go  into  that.  I  heard  it  suggested 
yesterday  that  the  Diocesan  convention  should  be  called 
convocation,  and  that  the  federative  meetings  where 
Dioceses  are  associated  with  one  another,  should  be  called 
synods  or  counc'ils,  and  that  the  higher  meetings  in 
which  we  are  now  engaged  should  have  some  other 
name.  But  until  the  change  is  made,  let  every  part  of 
the  Church  conform  to  the  nomenclature  adopted. 

Dr.  Pitkin. — It  appears  that  the  Missionary  Bishop 
of  the  Diocese  called  the  meeting  which  organized  this 
Diocese  as  "a  Convention" — as  a  "primary  Convention." 
It  is  afterwards  called  in  the  other  proceedings  a  coun- 
cil. I  think  it  is  a  perfectly  fair  inference  that  the 
word  council  is  used  as  synonymous  with  convention. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead. — Is  the  term  council  used  in  the  con-      • 
stitution  of  the  Diocese  V 

Rev.  Dr.  Pitkin. — It  is  used  in  the  constitution. 
The  title  of  the  journal  is:  "Journal  of  the  Pioccedings 
of  the  First  Annual  Council  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,"  &c. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead. — However  strong  my  desire  to  see 
the  new  Diocese  of  Nebraska  brought  into  communion 
with  this  General  Convention,  I  have  strong  constitu- 
tional objections  to  such  a  reception  unless  we  can  have 
assurance  that  there  will  be  a  correction  of  the  name  at 
their  next  convention.  I  have  strong  constitutional 
objections  to  the  admission  of  this  or  any  other  Diocese 
under  any  other  name  than  that  which  is  recognized  in 
the  constitution  of  the  Church.  If  the  term  convention 
were  not  applied  in  the  constitution  to  the  Diocesan  or- 
ganization I^hould  have  no  difficulty  <  but  if  any  gen- 
tleman examines  the  constitution,  he  will  find  that  it 
says  "If  the  Convention  of  the  diocese  should  neglect"  to 


11 


do  thus  and  so  ;  and  in  something  like  half  a  dozen  in- 
stances, the  term  convention  is  made  a  constitutional 
designation.  If  we  constitutionally  agree  to  strike  out 
the  word  convention  and  substitute  some  other,  very 
well :  but  I  do  not  believe  that  any  diocese  ever  existed 
in  the  union  that  had  a  right  to  change  this  name,  and 
I  certainly  do  not  believe  that  any  Diocese  coming  as  a 
suitor,  asking  for  admission,  has  any  right  to  assume  any 
other  name  than  that  authorized  by  the  constitution. 
Words  mean  something,  and  although  these  may  be  words 
which  are  synonymous,  there  are  few  synonyms  which 
have  not  variations  of  meaning.  But  admitting  that 
they  are  correlative  terms,  yet  let  us  resist  every  attempt 
at  encroaching  in  any  degree  even  to  a  letter  on  the 
constitution  of  the  Church.  There  are  encroachments, 
unintentional  perhaps,  that  are  at  this  very  day  intro- 
ducing among  us  variations  totally  unauthorized  by  the 
con.stitution  of  the  Church.  But  if  any  security  can  be 
given  that  this  name  assumed  by  the  diocese  of  Nebraska 
will  b^  corrected,  I  have  no  objections  to  receive  it  into 
union  with  the  Church. 

Eev.  Dr.  LiTTLEjouN. — The  Diocese  of  Georgia  me- 
morialized this  House  yesterday,  and  the  memorial  was 
referred  to  the  committee  on  Canons,  asking  this  House 
to  consent  to  the  change  from  the  name  convention  to 
council,  and  suggested  other  changes.  It  has  occurred  to 
me  that  the  debate  which  has  already  arisen  on  this  sub- 
ject is  premature.  I  think  it  will  be  better  for  this 
House,  inasmuch  as  the  matter  has  been  formally 
brought  to  its  notice,  to  ask  the  committee  on  Canons  to 
make  an  early  report,  and  then  the  whole  matter  of  the 
name  will  come  regularly  before  the  House.  I  under- 
stand the  Diocese  of  Minnesota  has  adopted  for  its  Dioce- 
san convention  the  name  Diocesan  council ;  and  there 
are  other  Dioceses  in  which  it  is  called  a  council.  I  submit 
to  the  consideration  of  the  House  whether  it  is  not  ex- 
pedient to  postpone  the  further  discussion  of  this  matter 
of  the  admission  of  the  diocese  of  Nebraska  until  after 
the  committee  on  Canons  have  reported  concerning  the 
memorial  of  the  Diocese  of  Georgia.  But  1  submit  that 
it  is  too  late  for  any  gentleman  to  resist  the  admission 
of  the  Diocese  on  the  technical  objection  to  its  name 
council,  when  other  Dioceses  in  full  communion  have 
already  adopted  the  name.  And  1  have  yet  to  hear  a 
satisfactory  argument  on  this  point  which  shall  convince 
me  that  a  Diocese  acting  in, its  own  proper  sphere  and  by 
its  accredited  authorities  has  not  the  right  to  make  a 
change  in  that  regard.  1  know  that  the  word  conven- 
tion is  used  in  the  constitution  of  the  Church,  but  it  is 
nowhere  made  imperative  upon  the  Dioceses  to  assume 
that  name. 

Rev.  Dr.  Petehkin,  of  Virginia, — said  that  he  was 
willing,  with  the  gcutlenian  from  New  York,  that  discus- 
sion on  this  subject  should  cease,  but  it  was  due  to  the 
members  ot  the  committee,  of  which  he  was  a  member, 
that  he  should  state  the  reasons  whicU  inllueneed  their 
action. 


A  message  from  the  House  of  Bishops  announced  the 
concurrence  with  the  House  of  Deputies  in  the  resolution 
to  appoint  a  committee  to  consider  the  propriety  of  se- 
lecting another  place  for  the  daily  sessions  of  the  con- 
vention. 

Dr.  Peterkin — continued :  We  observed  that  in  the 
Bishop's  call  for  the  meeting  of  the  Diocese,  it  was  called 
a  "primary  convention."  And  then  it  occurred  to  some 
of  us  that  the  words  were  interchangeably  used — as,  f.  r 
example,  in  the  prayer  in  which  we  joined  this  morning 
we  read  :  "A  prayer  to  be  used  at  the  meetings  of  the 
convention ;"  and  yet  in  the  prayer  we  jiray  that  God 
may  be  "present  with  the  council  of  His  Church." 
Taking  all  these  things  into  consideration,  we  thought  it 
was  not  proper  for  us  to  throw  any  obstacle  whatever  in 
the  way  of  the  adiiiissioii  of  this  new  Diocese. 

Mr.  WuLsu. — For  the  reverend  gentleman  from  Vir- 
ginia it  was  but  natural  he  should  be  liberal,  because  it 
seems  from  his  own  certificate  that  the  word  convention 
has  been  stricken  out  and  the  word  council  inserted. 

Judge  Otis. — Just  before  the  assembling  of  this 
convention,  my  attention  was  attracted  to  this  question. 
The  name  convention  is  to  be  (bund  ten  times  in  the 
constitution,  and  the  Canons  of  our  church  use  the 
name  thirty-five  times,  and  no  other  name.  Now  the 
question  is  presented  whether  a  new  Diocese  can  be 
admitted,  whose  legislature  has  adupted  another  name. 
I  am  the  friend  of  that  Diocese  and  of  its  Biohop,  and  I 
know  well  many  of  its  presbyters.  And  1  know  they 
do  not,  in  any  degree,  intend  to  dejjart  from  the  laws 
and  usages  of  this  Church.  I  think  they  can  be  admit- 
ted with  a'declaratory  law  or  resolution  such  as  has  been 
adopted  in  Congress  requiring  a  state  to  conform  some 
of  its  provisions  to  the  general  laws  of  the  United  States. 
They  may  be  admitted  upon  that  principle,  and  upon 
no  other.  A  memorial  was  passed  by  my  own  diocese 
which  we  are  instructed  to  present  here  asking  to 
change  to  the  name  council ;  but  no  Diocese  can  seize 
the  lists  and  change  the  name  in  advance  of  the  Church 
at  large.  Here  it  must  be  initialed,  and  nowhere  else  ; 
and  it  takes  two  General  conventions  to  do  it ;  and 
until  two  General  conventions  have  done  it,  it  is  an 
entire  departure  and  unlawful  for  a  diocese  to  make  the 
change.  But  this  diocese  has  acted  in  good  faith.  I 
think  we  may  lawfully  admit  it,  and  pass  a  declaratory 
resolution  that  they  shall  conform  to  the  law  of  the 
Church  until  it  is  changed  by  the  General  convention; 
and  in  that  way  only  can  we  get  over  this  difficulty.  I 
believe  the  State  of  California  was  admitted,  though  its 
constitution  was  adopted  in  advance  of  an  enabling  act, 
but  with  certain  prescribed  conditions ;  and  States  have 
been  required  to  change  their  constitutions  notwithstand- 
ing they  had  been  admitted  before,  by  giving  pledges  that 
they  would  conform  to  the  conditions  by  their  first  sub- 
sequent legislature.  1  will  mention  difficulties  of  going 
on  loosely  and  of  the  diocese  changing  its  name  in  ad- 
vance.    They  cannot   elect   a   Bishop  by  any  body  ex- 


12 


cept  the  convention  of  the  diocese.  No  power  is  given 
to  elect  a  Bishop  except  by  a  convention.  The  testimo- 
nials must  be  signed  by  a  constitutional  majority  of  both 
orders  of  the  convention  elect,  i  would  like  to  see  a 
house  elect  a  Bishop  and  present  his  tentimouial  signed 
by  a  council,  a  body  entirely  unknown,  and  unauthor-  ■ 
ized  to  do  it.  How  could  we  get  over  the  difficulty  ?  j 
We  could  not  do  it.  The  presiding  Bishop  has  no 
authority  to  take  orders  to  consecrate  a  Bishop  until 
the  testimonials  are  signed  by  the  conventions  electing 
and  are  prusented  to  him.  A  presbyter  cannot  be 
tried  by  an}'  other  body,  according  to  the  constitution 
of  our  Church,  than  that  body  known  as  the  diocesan 
convention  prescribing  the  rules.  If  any  other  body 
does  it,  his  rights  are  infringed  upon. 

Gov.  Stevenson,  of  Kentucky  : — I  have  listened 
with  pleasure  to  the  learned  deputy  who  has  just  oc- 
cupied the  floor.  The  nomenclature  is  not  only  import- 
ant, but  it  should  be  uniform.  I  think  it  is  an  important 
matter  ;  but  really  this  discussion  is  premature.  I  con- 
curred in  every  sentiment  that  was  uttered  by  the 
deputy  from  New  York.  It  does  seem  to  me  that  we 
ought  to  admit  this  new  diocese.  We  should  admit  her 
as  a  matter  of  justice,  although  she  did  use  the  name 
council.  She  had  a  right  to  look  to  Virginia,  the  first 
state  in  this  union  where  the  Episcopal  Church  flourish- 
ed, and  there  she  would  have  seen  the  word  council 
applied  to  a  diocesan  convention.  She  might  have  gonn 
to  this  general  convention  and  seen  where  a  council  had 
elected  a  Bishop  who  had  been  consecrated,  and  accept- 
ed by  the  general  assembly — the  Bishop  of  Alabama. 
Suppose  he  had  been  elected  by  a  diocese  styling  itself  a 
council,  which  I  believe  is  the  fact.  There  is  the  per- 
tinent answer  to  the  gentleman  who  last  addressed  this 
House.  If  Virginia  using  the  word  council,  had  elect- 
ed an  assistant  Bishop,  would  this  general  convention 
have  refused  to  accept  it  V  It  has  done  it ;  and  there  is 
the  answer  to  my  venerable  friend  who  last  addressed 
the  convention. 

Judge  Otis. — The  election  did  not  come  before  this 
House  ;  it  was  simply  sent  to  the  standing  committees. 

Gov.  Stevenson. — It  has  not  yet  met  the  objection 
that  it  is  unconstitutional,  and  that  he  is  not  a  regular- 
ly consecrated  Bishop  in  this  Church.  If  the  general 
convention  chooses  to  retain  the  word  convention,  1 
have  no  feeling  against  it.  When  Nebraska  saw  Minne- 
sota, Virginia,  and  other  states  using  the  word  council ; 
■when  she  saw  that  the  stale  of  Georgia  had  memorial 
ized  that  the  general  convention  should  be  termed  a 
General  Council— is  that  a  reason  for  excluding  her? 
When  she  acts  in  accordance  with  what  the  people  of 
Nebraska  may  have  supposed  the  popular  sentiment  of 
the  Church,  it  does  seem  to  me  that  that  ought  to  ex- 
cuse her.  But  I  do  not  agree  with  my  learned  friend 
in  his  construction  of  the  constitution.  I  yield  with 
-»reat  deference  to  his  experience  as  a  churchman  and  as 
a  lawyer ;  but  I  cannot  believe  that  the  term  convention 


as  used  in  the  constitution  carries  with  it  any  particular 
force.  If  I  have  ever  believed  any  thing  respecting  it, 
it  was  that  the  organization  of  the  Episcopal  Church  was 
based  upon  our  federal  form  of  Government,  the  House 
of  Bishops  corresponding  to  the  Senate,  and  this 
House  corresponding  to  the  House  of  Representatives. 
My  learned  friend  says  that  unless  the  diocesan  con- 
vention shall  use  the  term  convention,  its  acts  are  not 
valid  because  this  constitution  uses  the  word  convention. 
I  refer  him  to  the  constitution  of  the  United  States.  A 
senator  of  the  United  States  is  elected  by  what  ?  By 
the  legislature  of  each  state.  In  some  of  the  states  they 
are  called  the  popular  branch  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives :  in  others,  they  are  called  the  House  of 
Delegates;  in  others,  a  Council.  It  is,  however,  at 
last,  but  a  legislative  body.  I  might  multiply  the  vari- 
ous epithets  applied  to  the  branches  of  that  constituent 
body  by  which  a  Senator  is  to  be  elected.  But  no  man 
doubts  that  it  is  still  the  legislative  body,  and  that  body 
which  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  recognizes 
as  the  electors  of  a  senator  of  the  United  States.  There- 
fore I  say,  with  great  deference,  that  when  the  word 
convention  was  used,  it  does  seem  to  mc  that  it  meant 
but  the  legislative  power,  and,  whether  called  council 
or  convention  could  not  mihtate  against  the  validity  of 
the  election  of  the  members  elect,  and  should  not  mili- 
tate against  the  reception  of  the  new  diocese  which  is 
now  seeking  communion  with  the  Church. 

Judge  Battle — I  believe  it  has  been  disputed  a 
long  while  whether  a  rose  smells  as  sweet  by  any  other 
name,  but  I  believe  it  has  never  been  disputed  whether 
a  rose  is  not  a  rose  because  called  by  some  other  name. 
It  seems  to  me  that  Nebraska  has  done  everything  that 
the  constitution  requires,  notwithstanding  her  use  of  the 
term  Council. 

Gov.  Fish — The  admission  of  this  new  Diocese,  it  is 
claimed  by  my  honorable  friend  who  preceded  me,  is 
under  the  5th  article  of  the  Constitution.  The  Diocese 
of  Nebraska  does  not  tell  us  tliat  it  is  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Cliurch,  as  required  by  the  5th  article  of  the 
Constitutii  n.  They  do  not  ask  admission  as  a  Protes- 
tant Episcopal  Church.  They  accede  to  the  Constitu- 
tion, b^it  it  cannot  be  claimed  under  this  5th  article  of 
the  Constitution,  they  are  entitled  to  admission.  Sup- 
pose the  resolution  reported  by  the  committee  to  be 
adopted,  how  are  these  deputies  to  take  their  seats? 
Article  second  ol'  the  Constitution  of  this  Church  pro- 
vides that  the  churches  in  the  Diocese  shall  be  entitled 
to  representation  of  both  clergy  and  laity  "  chosen  by 
the  Convention  thereof."  But  there  has  been  no  Con- 
vention of  the  Diocese  to  prescribe  the  mode  of  electing 
the  deputies.  Some  stresj  has  been  laid  upon  the  fact 
that  the  Bishop  called  the  meeting  as  a  Convention. 
But  what  does  that  convention  do  ?  It  disclaims  the 
title  convention  and  calls  itself  a  council.  They  are 
not,  therefore,  what  the  Bishop  convened — a  convention 
of  the  Diocese,  but  another  body  which  has  adopted  this 


/ 


13 


constitution,  and  which  asks  admission.  [Reads  from 
the  6th  article  of  the  constitution  with  reference  tu  the 
trial  of  presbyters].  Every  lawyer  in  this  body  will 
recognize  the  necessity  of  strict  terms  in  criminal  pro- 
ceedings. Suppose  the  case  in  this  Diocese  of  a  pres- 
byter being  arraigned  on  charges,  and  he  pleads  that  he 
is  not  arraigned  or  tried  as  prescribed  by  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  Church — that  there  has  been  no  Convention 
of  the  Diocese  of  Nebraska  to  direct  the  mode  of  try- 
ing ?  Now  it  is  claimed  that  the  words  are  synonymous ; 
but  that  position  might  be  overruled  and  involve  the 
Church  in  trouble.  We  all  desire  to  have  this  Diocese 
in  communion  with  the  Church  as  soon  as  possible.  'J  he 
gentleman  from  Illinois  proposes  to  admit  it  on  condition. 
That  is  an  old  proposition.  It  is  letting  the  lion  in  to 
see  if  you  can  turn  him  out  again  I  think  my  friend's 
argument  of  analogy  of  the  action  of  Congress  in  ad- 
mitting Stales  under  conditions,  seems  strained.  1  think 
the  States  admitted  h;ive  been  admitted  "  loheii  tbe.f 
.shall  change  their  constitutions."  I  propose  that  the 
Diocese  of  Nebraska  shall  be  admitted  whenever  the 
authority  of  the  Diocese  shall  have  adopted  a  constitu- 
tion recognizing  it  as  a  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
and  changing  the  name  of  council  to  Convention.  I 
would  move  to  amend  the  resolution  before  the  House 
in  that  manner. 

A  Deputy — Likened  the  election  of  deputies  by  a 
Diocese,  to  the  election  of  representatives  by  the  legis- 
lature of  a  State,  and  argued  that  the  election  was  valid 
by  whatever  name  the  legislature  might  be  called,  and 
it  was  immaterial  whether  the  legislative  power  of  a 
Diocese  was  called  a  convention  or  a  council. 

Gov.  Fish — The   "legislature"   is   a   very   geueric 

term.     The  parliament  of  Great  Britain  is  a  legislature. 

A  Deputy — Is  not  the  House  of  Burgesses  the  same '! 

Gov.  Fish — No  doubt   it  is.      Whatever   body   the 

legislative  power  of  a   State  is  vested  in,  constitutes  its 

legislature. 

A  Deputy — Is  it  material  then  whether  a  legislative 
body  is  called  a  convention  or  council  V 

Gov.  Fish — We  have  conventions  and  cnuncils  of 
the  Church.  The  term  "legislature"  as  used  in  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  i.s  a  generic  term,  but 
not  so  with  these  terms  convention  and  council.  If  they 
were  s}  nonymous,  and  if  they  were  generic  terms,  the 
analogy  wcjuld  be  complete ;  but  I  think  there  is  a  very 
great  dili'ereiice  between  the  two  cases.  Sume  gentle- 
men desire  to  change  the  name  of  this  body  from  con- 
vention to  council,  but  we  have  not  done  it.  We  have 
councils,  conventions,  and  synods.  Does  any  gentleman 
undertake  to  say  that  they  will  come  under  the  same 
designation  as  the  word  legislature  in  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States? 

Kev.  Dr.  Adams,  of  Wisconsin— 1  think  I  can  add  a 
few  words  to  the  resolution -before  the  House,  which 
would  settle  the  whole  question  with  reference  to  the 
Diocese  of  Nebraska.     I  listened  with  great  pleasure  to 


\    the   remarks   of  the   distinguished    layman   from   New 
York  [Gov.  Fish].      As  a  lawyer  I  suppose   the  House 
has  the  highest  confidence  in   him,  and   that   he   under- 
stands the  legal  position  of  the  questions  that  may  come 
before  this  House.     He  objected  to  the  use  of  the  word 
council,  but  thought  that   if  that  word  were  understood 
to  mean  precisely  and  exactly  what  the  word  convention 
means,  this  House   should   pass  the  resolution.     I  think 
this  House  can  pass  a  resolution  with  the  addition  that  I 
propose — that  is,  adding  to  the  proposed  resolution  thes 
words:  "with  the  understanding  that  the  word  council 
in  its  constitution  and  canons  is  identical  in  meaning  and 
perfectly  synonymous  with   the   word  convention."      I 
think  all  the  objections  that  have  been  made  by  gentle- 
men against  the  reception  of  the  Diocese  of  Nebraska 
into  full  union  with  our  convention  are  perfectly  met  by 
this  proposition.     The  proposed  addition  of  a  declara- 
tion that  by-and-by  they  shall  'substitute  the  word  con- 
vention for  the  word  council  is  certainly  very  awkward 
and  clumsy.     We  had  better  admit  the  Diocese  at  once 
or  reject  it.     If  we  declare  that   the   word  council   is 
identical  in   meaning   with  the  word  convention,  there 
will  be  no  <lifficulty  in  the  case  ;  that  settles  the  question 
completely  and  entirely.     Gentlemen  have  considered 
the   constitutional    reasons   against    it.     I   myself  come 
from  the  West,  and  I  wish  to  bring  forward  the  real 
reasons  why  we  from  the  West  do  not  want  this  title  of 
conventiori   any  more.     The  word  convention   is  bona 
fide  and   actually   synonymous   with  synod   (si/nudos). 
convention,  or  synod.     They  are  all  the  same.     In  the 
constitution  and  canons  the  word  convention  was  given 
as  identical  with  the  word  coiuicil,  as  is  manifest  from 
the  prayer  to  be  used  at  the  meeting  of  the  Convention. 
The  Prayer  Book  I  take  to  be  superior  to  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States.     In  the  Prayer  Book,  in  the 
prayer  we  used  this  morning,  "  Council  of  Thy  Church  " 
is  synonymous  with  convention.     I  take  it  that  the  orig- 
inal writers  and  composers  of  imr  constitution  and  can- 
ons took  them  to  be   identical   in  meaning;  but  if  they 
did  so  use  the  term,  circumstances  have   occurred  sincel 
which  make  us  desire  that  the  word  should   be   changed 
to  the  word   Council.     1   proposed  myself,  in   the  last 
Convention,  that  "  General  Convention,"  wherever  the 
words  occur,  should  be  changed  into  the  words  "  Great 
National  Council;"  and  I  believe  there  is  not  a  deputy 
in  this  IIou.se  that  is  not  willing  to  take  the  word  coun- 
cil instead  of  tlie  word  convention.     But  what  are   the 
reasons  for  the  change       Theyai>,,  ...   i..e   lirst  place, 
that  the  word  convention  is  used  for  all  sorts  of  assem- 
blies.    When  we  sat  in   General   Convention   in   Phila- 
delphia, there  was  a   Dctilixts'   Convention;  and  there 
was  a  67)iri7«(!/i.<'.v' Convention ;  and   there  was  a  Con- 
vention of   Baptists.     There   is  the  convention  of  all 
classes,  sort«,  and  sizes.     The  word  is  a  dirly  one ;  it  is 
a  word  that  is  polluted  and  defiled.     There  is  nothing  in 
itself  that  is  wrong;  but  it  is  used  so  that  it  means  any 
chance-like  meeting  of  any  sort  of  persons  whatsoever 


14 


that  gather  together  to  form  any  sort  of  society.  We 
in  the  West  feel  that  that  meaning  and  that  use  of  the 
word  give  us  some  trouble.  If  it  were  a  council,  men 
would  come  to  it  who  take  an  interest  in  the  Church — 
who  are  desirous  to  forward  the  progress  of  the  Church ; 
but  as  a  convention  we  have  demagogues  of  all  sorts  and 
sizes,  thinking  that  tliey  have  a  right  to  come  to  a  con- 
vention; and  1  saw  men  in  convention  in  the  West 
making  the  motions  and  speeches  and  using  the  meanest 
arts,  of  the  dirtiest  demagogues,  in  the  Council  of  the 
Church ;  and  when  1  saw  that,  I  said  we  should  have 
some  other  name  ; — that  we  should  huve  tlie  name  coun- 
cil ; — that  the  proclivities  and  tendencies  which  this  word 
convention  brings  upon  us,  are  injurious  and  destructive. 
I  rejoice  that  the  Church  in  the  State  of  Virginia  has 
taken  the  name  council ;  and  I  would  ask  the  opponents 
of  this  term,  if  they  intend  to  e,\pel  the  Church  in  the 
State  of  Virginia?  Do  they  intend  to  shut  out  Bishop 
Whipple  from  the  House  of  Bishops  ?  Certainly,  if 
they  reject  Nebraska,  they  are  bound  to  do  so.  I  think 
the  word  council  is  an  ecclesiastical  one,  and  an  admi- 
rable one;  and  I  think  if  we  admit  the  Diocese  of  Ne- 
braska with  the  title  council,  we  do  what  we  have  a 
rif/hl  to  do,  and  we  open  the  way  for  the  change  in  the 
title  of  this  assembly,  which  I  hope  before  this  meeting 
is  passed  will  be  on  its  way  to  be  the  Great  National 
Council  of  the  Church  in  the  United  States. 

Dr.  Adams's  amendment  was  seconded. 

Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin — There  has  been  an  amendment 
already  offered.  In  regard  to  this  proposed  amendment, 
the  grand  objection  is,  that  it  is  a  proposition  to  settle 
by  a  side  issue,  a  question  already  brought  to  the  atten- 
tion of  this  House  by  solemn  memorials  Irom  some  Dio- 
ceses, and  already  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Conslitution  and  Canons.  The  distinction  between  con- 
vention and  council  has  been  considered  a  question  of 
so  great  importance  that  one  or  more  Dioceses  have 
memorialized  this  Convention  to  have  the  change  made. 
Now,  it  is  proposed  by  a  side-issue,  and  before-hand, 
that  we  should  declare,  according  to  the  proposed  amend- 
ment to  this  resolution,  that  there  is  no  difference  at  all 
between  the  two  words.  It  seems  to  me  that  it  is  a  very 
exceptionable  mode  of  proceeding.  And  it  seems  to 
me  very  strange  that,  as  far  as  I  can  understand  it,  some 
of  these  same  gentlemen  who  are  so  earnest  to  have  the 
change  made  come  here  and  say  there  is  no  difference. 
Bui  then,  Mr.  President,  we  are  told  that  convention  is 
a  dirty  word.  It  seims  to  me  that  this  is  something  like 
a  reflection,  not  upon  ourselves  only,  but  upon  our  pred- 
ecessors in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  (_'hurch  in  the 
United  States  of  America.  We  have  been  calling  our- 
selves a  General  Convention.  In  our  constitution  and 
(jeneral  Convention  we  have  spoken  repeatedly  of  con- 
ventions of  the  Dioceses  in  the  several  Slates,  and  now 
we  are  arraigned  for  the  use  of  a  dirty  word.  We  have 
been  called  by  a  dirty  name  and  have  got  tired  of  a 
dirty  name,  and  want  to  change  it.     If  some  other  body 


call  themselves  by  the  name  convention,  shall  we  be 
ashamed  who  have  called  ourselves,  for  more  than  half 
a  century,  by  the  name  of  convention  ?  Is  the  conven- 
tion of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  degraded  V 
Has  its  very  title  become  dirty  because  some  other  peo- 
ple call  themselves  conventions?  I  know  people  who 
call  themselves  councils.  There  is  a  plenty  of  councils 
in  the  Congregational  denomination.  Every  month, 
probably,  a  council  meets.  Convention  has  a  wider  ap- 
plication ;  that  is,  it  implies  a  larger  and  more  respect- 
able sort  of  meeting.  But  the  gentleman  says  that 
council  is  an  ecclesiastical  term.  But  it  has  been  used 
tor  councils  of  Bishops;  and  if  the  distinclion  were  to 
be  taken  at  all,  then  the  word  council  would  be  histori- 
cally inaccurate,  and  not  exactly  appropriate,  for  our 
conventions. 

The  House  then  took  a  recess  of  20  minutes,  when 
Dr.  Goodwin  continued  : — I  did  not  intend  to  occupy 
the  House  much  longer  and  should  have  closed  in  a  few 
minutes,  but,  as  all  the  members  who  have  spoken  here 
will  easily  understand — as  I  have  had  a  few  minutes  ' 
to  think  of  the  matter,  I  would  naturally  like  to  say 
more,  a  misfortune  for  the  House  as  well  as  (or  myself 
In  regard  to  the  word  Council,  I  was  stating  that  there 
was  some  distinction  between  the  word  convention  and 
council,  not  intending,  however,  at  all  to  hold  the  ground 
that  it  would  be  improper  or  inexpedient  that  we  should 
change  the  name  of  this  convention  to  council  and  the 
name  of  the  Diocesan  conventions  to  councils  if  we  see 
fit.  I  do  not  think  it  is  a  matter  of  so  much  importance. 
It  is  other  people  who  think  it  is  a  matter  of  so  much  im- 
portance ;  and  I  said  ihat  it  is  a  curious  thing  that  those 
same  people  come  and  tell  us  that  there  is  no  difference ; 
that  the  Diocese  of  Nebraska  is  to  be  admitted  with  the 
understanding  that  the  two  words  have  just  the  same 
signification.  We  have  been  told  by  men  learned  in 
language — and  I  confess  as  a  learner  that  I  receive  the 
doctrine— that  there  are  no  two  words  in  any  language 
that  have  precisely  in  all  respects,  and  in  all  applications, 
and  associations,  and  in  all  the  breadth  and  length  of 
their  meaning,  precisely  the  same  signification.  I  un- 
dertake to  say,  therefoi-e,  that  these  words  do  not  have 
the  same  signification.  They  may  have  a  correspondent 
or  analogous  etymology,  and  what  of  it?  They  have  not 
the  same  signification.  As  to  the  word  convention  being  so 
much  degraded  by  its  various  uses,  allow  me  to  say  furth- 
er'that  our  brethren  ot'the  West  might  become  familiar 
with  tlie  word  Council  in  a  great  variety  of  applications. 
There  arc  Indian  councils  ;  then  are  we  to  become  Indian 
councils?  Uh  no.  Theysay  that  it  is  an  ecclesiastical  term. 
Very  well,  say  it  is  an  ecclesiastical  convention  ;  and  I  do 
not  understand  that  if  the  spiritualists  choose  to  hold  a 
convention,  we  are  to  be  ashamed  of  our  old  received 
term  and  call  it  dirty.  I  protest  that  it  is  not  proper  in 
my  brethren  to  throw  dirf  upon  our  own  received,  ac- 
knowledged, well-established  appellation,  given  us  by 
our  fathers — the  very  name  by  which  we  were  baptized. 


15 


I  think  it  is  a  respectable  name.     Although  Council,  in 
some  respects,  may   not  seem    so  good  a  term,  1  do  not 
object  to  it.     I  think  it  is  a   matter  of  no   great  conse- 
quence, if  we  choo.se  to  chiingc  it.   I'.ut  I  think  it  is  a  mat- 
ter of  ureat  consequence  whi'ii  otlu'.r  people  uiulertaUe 
to  change  it  for  us.    I  think  th'-  terms  which  this  Church, 
hy  its   proper  authorities,   has  given  it,  are  terms   that 
should  be  adhered  to  until  changed  by  proper  authority. 
It  is   said  that   this   Church   itself    recognizes — in    the 
Prayer  Book,  for  example,  by  the  prayer  for  the  Gener- 
al  Convention — that   the    two  terms   Convention    and 
Council  are  interchangeable.     I  have  no   doiilit  that  in  j 
some  respects  they  are  interchangealih' ;  and  I  have  no 
doubt  that  a  man  might  in  conversation  and  in  his  prayei  s, 
call  this  a  council  of  the  Church ;  but  the  constitutional 
word  is  one  thing,  and  a  word   used   in  conversation  or 
even   in  prayer  is  another  thing.     If  a  man   will  insist 
upon  it  that  there  is  a  prayer  of  this   Church   with  the 
term  council  in  it,  then  allow  me  to  say  that  the  term  Cath- 
olic in  the  creed  is  understood  to  be  equivalent,  I  sup- 
pose, to  the  word  Univefsil.  I  ask  the  gentlemen  if  they 
are  willing  that  any  chun  h  in  any  Diocese  shall,  without 
the  authority  of  the    (icneral    Convention,   change   the 
term  Catholic  in  the  creed  to  the  term  Universal.     Our 
Church  has  substituted   Universal   for  it  in  one  of  the 
prayers  for  the  admission  of  candidates  to  Holy  orders  - 
"  who  hast  purchased  for  Thyself  a  universal  church  " ; 
and  in  another  prayer — "  who  hast  purchased   fir  Thy- 
self a  universal    church    by  the  precious   blood  of  Thy 
dear  Son" — that  in  the  Latin  corresponding  is  Catholic 
Church.  More  especially  in  our  petitions  in  the  Litany — 
"  that  it  may  please  Thee  to  rule  and  govern  Thy  Holy 
Church  universal  in  the   right  way."     In  the  Latin  edi- 
tion ot  the  Prayer  Book,  that  is  "catholic."     Here  then 
we  have  the  authority  of  the  Church    in  our  own  Lit- 
urwy  that  "  Church  Universal  "  is  interchangeable  with 
"  Church  Catholic."     is  it   then   a  matter  of  no  conse- 
quence that   the   term   Catholic   should   be  used    in  its 
place?  I  believe'these  very  brethren  who  are  so  nigeiit 
that  the  term  Council  should  be  substituted   for  the  term 
Convention,  and   would  endeavor  to  thrust  it  in  in  thi.s 
way,  would  be  the  last  to  give  up  the  term  Catholic  and 
allow  the  term  Universal  to  be  substituted  at  will  for  it. 
But  you  sa}'  this  Prayer  Book  is  established  by  the  au- 
thority of  the  Church  and  cannot  be  changed  one  word  or 
syllable  without  the  authority  ofunc  General  t'onveiitioii 
referring  the  change  to  another  (ieneral  Convention  and 
being  made  known  to  every  Conventi<m  of  the  Dioceses, 
and   adopted    by    a   subsequent    General    Convention. 
That   is  true.     So   you  cannot  change  Catholic   in  the 
Creed;  you  cannot  change  a  word  in  the  Prayer  Book. 
But,  we  read  also  in   the  very  ne.xt  article  of  the  consti- 
tution, that  this  constitution  shall  be  unalleralile  unless  a 
General  Convention  of  our  Church,  by  a  majority  of  the 
Dioceses  should  have  ailopted  the  same.     So  the  altera- 
tion is  placed  upon  precisely  the  same  grounds  as  an  al- 
teration of  the  Prayer  Book. 


I  wish  to  have  this  point  distinctly  made  and  under- 
stood— Has  the  church  in  each  Diocese  a  right  to  change 
even  a  word  in  the  constitution  ?  "  Oh,  no,  not  in  the  con- 
stitution, liut  they  use  different  words  for  themselve.s." 
Have  they  a  right  to  use  different  words  in  their  services 
and  in  I  heir  church  V  Can  they  substitute  in  their  daily 
prayer  the  word  Univer.^al  for  the  word  I'atlinlic  V  Can 
they  substitute  in  their  terminology  in  regard  to  their 
own  convention  the  term  Council  ?  iVIust  it  not  take  its 
regular  course  through  the  General  Convention  ?  I  do 
not  inquire  what  they  can  do  in  the  abstract  ;  I  mean  to 
inquire  what  they  can  do  constitutionally  and  rightfully. 
Iftlieterm  Catholic  might  be  changed,  then  the  term 
Protestant  E])iscopal  might  be  changed.  [Reads  from 
the  Constitution  about  the  organization  of  Dioceses.] 
Niiw  the  Convention  of  this  Diocese  in  Nebraska  was  call- 
ed as  a  Convention  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Chundi 
of  that  Diocese.  On  the  title-page  of  the  proceedings 
of  that  Convention,  it  is  called  a  '•  Convention  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church."  Its  Journal  opens  with  the 
recognition  of  its  being  a  Convention  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church.  It  appears,  therefore,  that  they 
have  not  abolished  the  name  Protestant  Episcopal  but 
i-ecognized  it  on  the  face  of  their  Journal.  But  I  ask 
the  attention  of  the  House  to  this  stepby-step  process. 
Here  is  a  ( 'onvention  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 
They  meet  as  a  Convention  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  ;  they  then  adopt  a  constitution  as  the  Diocese 
of  Nebraska,  and  they  declare  as  their  title  the  Council  of 
the  Church  of  the  Diocese  of  Nebraska  ;  and  I  take  it  that 
is  to  be  henceforth  their  title.  They  have  resolved  them- 
selves into  something  else  than  a  Convention  of  the  Prot- 
estant Episcopal  Church,  and  they  come  here  asking  for 
admission  into  communion  with  this  Convention.  It  is 
not  in  my  apprehension,  any  answer  to  my  objection  to 
say  that  they  met  as  a  Convention.  They  or  'anized 
themselves  under  another  name,  and  they  come  to  us 
under  that  other  name. 

We  have  been  told  that  this  word  (Convention  is  a 
dinv  word.  Xvt  we  next  to  be  told  that  Protestant  is  a 
dirty  word  ?  I  know  of  men  who  have  said —  I  have  heard 
it  said — that  it  was  already  something  equivalen  t  to  that. 
I  have  not  heard  it  in  this  Convention;  I  trust  I  shall 
never  live  to  hear  it  said  here  ;  but  it  is  uttered  by  some 
men  who  consider  themselves  connected  with  the  Church, 
that  ihey  do  not  wish  to  be  called  Protestant.  Now, 
suppose  these  geuikMnen  abolished  the  word  Protestant 
or  the  word  Episcopal.  Suppose  this  Diocese  of  Nebras- 
ka had  done  tliis^  and  had  styled  themselves  the  Protes- 
tant Church  in  the  Diocese  of  Nebraska,  and  had  come  to 
this  Convention  to  be  received  into  communion  with 
this  General  Convention,  I  should  object;  and  I  should 
stand  at  the  door  and  object  as  long  as  I  had  a  right  to 
object,  that  they  could  not  be  under  our  Constitution  ad- 
mitted as  a  '•  Protestant  Church," and  if  not  as  a  Protes- 
tant Church,  I  would  like  to  know  if  it  improves  the 
matter  if  they  leave  out  not  only  Episcopal  but  also  Proteg- 


16 


fant  ?  Now  words  are  things,  and  nobody  knows  it  bet- 
er  than  those  gentlemen  who  urge  the  proposed  action. 
The  evidence  that  they  know  it  I  have  adduced — the 
importance  they  attach  to  this  very  change. 

Rev.  Dr.  Adams  :  I  asli  liberty  of  the  gentleman  to 
correct  a  mistake  that  I  believe  he  has  made.  You  have 
said  [addressing  Dr.  Goodwin]  that  the  title  of  the  Con- 
vention on  the  title  page  of  the  procedings  vpas  "  Con- 
vention." 

Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin  : — I  had  not  at  the  time  the  op- 
portunity of  seeing  a  copy  of  the  Journal. 

The  Secretary  read  the  title  :  "  Journal  of  the  Pro- 
ceedings of  the  First  Annual  Council  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  Diocese  of  Nebraska  ;  "  and  the 
first  article  of  the  Constitution  :  -'This  Church  shall  be 
called  and  distinguished  as  the  Diocese  of  Nebraska;" 
and  article  second :  "  The  Cliurch  of  the  Diocese  of 
Nebraska  accedes  to  the  Constitution  and  Canons  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  and  recognizes  the  authority  of  the  General 
Convention  of  the  same." 

Rcv.Thos.  C.  Pitkin,  D.  D.: — I  will  simply  state,  as 
chairman  of  the  Committee,  that  we  considered  the  sec- 
ond article  as  carrying  the  name,  because  they  accede 
to  the  constitution  and  canons  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  in  the  United  States  of  .America.  I  am 
not  a  lawyer,  but  I  suppose  that  that  would  certainly 
carry  the  name  with  it. 

Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin.  1  had  no  opportunity  to  look 
at  that  document  e.xcept  at  the  secretary's  table.  I  am 
glad  to  know  its  exact  terms.  I  was  uncertain  whether 
it  was  entitled  the  Convention  or  the  Council.  We 
are  told  by  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  that  some 
hold  was  taken  of  the  fact  that  they  met  as  a  Conven- 
tion ;  but  now  it  seems  that  even  that  hold  is  gone — they 
met  as  a  Council,  and  did  not  resolve  themselves  into 
anything  else. 

As  to  another  point — that  they  accede  to  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  and-  that  you 
must  not  go  behind  that.  That  is  a  curious  sort  of  ar- 
jument,  when  perchance  it  may  stand  on  the  face  of  the 
same  document  that  they  do  violate  that  constitution. 
I  suppose  they  accede  to  the  constitution  as  they  under- 
stand it ;  they  choose  to  understand  that  when  you  say 
convention  you  mean  council.  I  do  not  know  that  they 
have  any  right  to  do  that.  We  mean  what  we  say. 
Their  saying  thej'  have  complied  with  the  Constitution 
does  not  really  make  it  so.  My  argument  is  that  they 
have  not  really  conformed  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America. 

It  is  alleged,  in  regard  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  that  although  the  words  are  not  identical, 
yet  it  is  in  accordance  with  the  language  in  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  and  the  interpretation  of  the  action 
under  it.  1  wish  to  say  and  show  that  the  argument 
from  analogy  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 


is  all  the  other  way.  The  legislative  power  under  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  declared  to  be  vested 
in  a  Congress  of  the  United  States.  We  say  that  our 
legislative  power  is  vested  in  a  General  Convention. 
Now,  if  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  had  gone 
on  to  speak  of  the  Congresses  of  the  difi'erent  States,  we 
should  have  had  an  analogy ;  but  our  constitution  goes 
on  to  speak  of  conventions  of  the  different  Dioceses,  us- 
ing the  same  terms.  But  as  the  Deputy  from  New  York 
has  clearly  set  forth,  the  term  legidalive  which  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  employed  is  intentionally 
a  general  term  which  will  cover  grand  Congress,  or 
general  court,  or  general  assembly,  or  whatever  other 
name  any  State  should  choose  to  assign  its  legislature. 
It  is  intended  to  be  a  general  term.  There  was,  at  the 
time  of  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  a  difference  in  the  different  States,  in  the  desig- 
nation of  the  Lower  House  in  their  Legislatures.  In 
some,  they  were  called  the  House  of  Burgesses ;  in  some, 
the  House  nf  Assembly  ;  in  some,  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives. Now,  supppose  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  having  declared  that  its  Congress  should 
consist  of  a  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives,  should 
have  proceeded  to  designate  the  Lower  House  in  all  the 
States,  as  a  House  of  Representatives,  that  would  have 
been  analogous  to  our  Constitution.  But  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States  very  carefully  abstained  from 
so  designating  them.  It  took  a  roundabout  (brm  of  ex- ' 
pression  to  avoid  it.  Thej'  declared,  for  example,  that 
the  qualifications  for  electors  of  Representatives  to  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  shall  be  the  same  as  the 
qualifications  of  electors  for  the  members  of  the  most 
numerous  house  in  the  State  Legislature. 

Message  No.  3  from  the  House  of  Bishops  was  here 
received,  informing  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Dep- 
uties that  the  House  of  Bishops  had  adopted  the  follow- 
ing resolution. 

Resolved,  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies 
concurring,  that  the  Diocese  of  Nebraska  be,  and  the 
same  is  hereby  admitted  into  union  with  the  General 
Convention  of  the  Church  in  the  United  States. 

A  Deputy. — I  tliink  that  settles  the  matter. 

The  President. — The  gentleman  will  proceed  with  his 
argument. 

Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin — continuing :  That  the  Dioceses 
already  in  communion  with  the  Chui-ch  should  change 
the  nomenclature  is  one  thing;  our  adopting  the  change 
is  another  thing.  I  hold  they  have  no  right  to  make  the 
change.  I  am  perfectly  willing  that  the  Diocese  of  Ne- 
braska should  be  received.  I  was  sorry  from  the  first 
moment  that  there  was  any  difficulty  in  the  way.  The 
question  I  have  been  discussing  has  been  forced  upon 
me  by  the  amendment  to  the  amendment. 

Judge  Battle.  It  is  very  well  known  that  most 
of  the  old  thirteen  States  had  adopted  Constitutions 
prior  to  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.    Now,  when  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 


17 


was  adopted,  did  it  not  necessarily  change  the  constitu- 
tions of  all  the  States  that  were  inconsistent  in  any  de- 
gree with  it  ?  The  moment  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  was  adopted,  of  course  that  had  the  ef- 
fect, ipso  facto,  to  change  at  once  everything  inconsist- 
ent with  it.  Now  if  the  Diocese  of  Nebraska  have 
adopted  the  Constitution  of  the  General  Convention 
that,  ipso  facto,  changes  everything  that  ought  to  be 
changed  in  the  Diocesan  convention. 

Rev.  Du.  Goodwin.  The  proposition  is  that  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  rendered  null  anything 
inconsistent  with  its  provisions.  I  might  admit  it  for  my 
present  purpose.  My  argument  is,  and  was,  that,  in- 
asmuch as  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  did  not 
intend  to  dictate  to  the  several  States  by  what  name  the 
Lower  Houses  of  their  Legislatures  should  be  called,  it 
carefully  avoided  designating  those  Lower  Houses  by 
any  name.  We  have  designated  the  conventions  of  the 
Dioceses  by  names;  there  lies  precisely  the  difference. 
The  analogy  utterly  fails  at  that  point.  If  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States  had  designated  the  Lower 
House,  the  more  numerous  branch  of  the  State  Legis- 
latures, as  the  House  of  Representatives,  they  would 
have  been  bound  to  style  themselves  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives, by  the  authority  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States. 

Judge  B.\'itle.  If  the  Constitution  of  our  Church 
does  not  do  the  same  thing,  why  not  permit  them  to  re- 
ain  the  name  ?  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
does  not  require  the  States  to  do  it.  If  our  Constitution 
is  inconsistent  with  the  name,  it  changes  it. 

Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin.  Our  Constitution  retains  the 
name,  and  we  stultify  ourselves  by  receiving  a  Diocese 
that  has  abolished  the  name.  What  matters  it  that  they 
say  they  accede  to  the  Constitution  when  on  the  face  of 
their  acts  it  appears  that  they  have  not  conformed  to  the 
Constitution  ?  I  am  willing  that  the  Diocese  of  Nebras- 
ka should  be  received  according  to  the  amendment  to  the 
original  resolution  which  I  would  heartily  second  ;  but 
the  amendment  to  the  amendment  I  have  endeavored  to 
oppose. 

Rev.  Dr.  Adams.  I  proposed  an  amendment  and 
the  Committee  accepted  it  as  a  part  of  the  first  reso- 
lution. 

The  Pkes't.     The  Committee  had  no  right  to  do  so. 

Rev.  Dh.  Goodwin.  We  have  a  message  from  the 
House  of  Bishops  on  this  matter.  Whether  they  have 
had  the  whole  subject  before  them  or  not  I  know  not. 
I  know  not  upon  what  grounds  they  have  acted,  but  I 
think  it  is  fair  to  say  that  it  is  not  for  this  house  to  be  de- 
termined i^  its  legislative  functions  by  the  vote  of  the 
House  of  Bishops :  and  I  believe  they  do  not  expect  us 
to  be. 

Rkv.  Dr.  Goodwin — then  moved  that  the  whole 
subject  be  postponed  until  the  Committee  on  canoii>  re- 
ported on  this  subject,  which  motion  being  seconded  and 
Uie  cjuestion  being  called  for 

3 


Judge  Otis — remarked  :  Mr.  President,  the  temper 
of  this  House  is  evidently  to  admit  the  Diocese  of  Ne- 
braska. I  have  this  morning  set  forth  the  legal  objec- 
tions in  respect  of  change  from  the  term  Convention  to 
the  name  Council,  declaring  at  the  same  time  that  I 
wanted  to  admit  this  Diocese.  The  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  New  Dioceses  to  whom  it  was  referred,  admit- 
ting it,  should  be,  in  my  opinion,  adopted  with  a  pro- 
viso. I  have  carefully  drawn  a  proviso  that  will  require 
the  resolution  of  admission  to  go  back  to  the  House  of 
Bishops.  They  having  acted  upon  it,  we  may  adopt  this 
report  of  the  Committee  retaining  our  own  views  of 
the  law  in  accordance  with  the  view  of  the  Committee 
on  Canons,  as  announced  by  Dr.  Mead,  as  chairman  of 
the  Committee.  Two  amendments  have  been  olTered. 
By  referring  to  our  rules  of  order,  it  will  be  seen  that 
an  amendment  to  an  amendment  may  be  offered,  but  no 
further  amendment ;  but  a  substitute  for  these  may  be 
adopted.  I  propose  this  substitute  to  the  report,  to 
come  in  after  the  report  as  a  substitute  for  the  two  amend- 
ments now  before  the  House.  I  have  submitted  it  to  the 
Bishop  of  Nebraska,  and  it  is  satisfactory  to  him.  It 
preserves  our  consistency  as  a  Church  of  law  and  order. 
It  does  not  require  us  to  express  any  opinion  as  to  wheth- 
er Protestant  and  Catholic  are  equivalent,  or  whether  you 
may  leave  out  certain  words  of  the  baptismal  service  or 
from  the  Prayer  Book.  The  substitute  is  this,  to  add 
after  the  resolution  of  the  Committee  the  following  pro- 
viso :  "  Provided,  that  in  admitting  the  new  Diocese  of 
Nebraska,  this  House  does  not  intend  to  sanction  the 
change  of  name  from  that  of  Convention  to  Council  by 
the  Diocese  of  Nebraska  unless  and  until  the  Constitu- 
tion and  canons  of  the  General  Convention  are  so 
changed  in  the  manner  therein  provided,  for  amend- 
ments and  alterations." 

Gov.  Fish  made  some  remarks  on  the  question  ot 
order,  when 

The  President  stated  that  the  question  before  the 
House  was  the  resolution  oftcred  by  the  Committee  on 
New  Dioceses. 

Hon.  S.  B.  Rugrles. — As  one  of  the  committee  I 
claim  to  say,  in  justice  to  that  committee,  that  when 
this  subject  was  brought  before  them,  thi.s  difficulty  of 
the  substitution  of  the  word  council  for  the  constitu- 
tional word  known  to  this  Body,  met  the  committee  at 
once.  We  were  oppressed  by  the  difficulty,  and  we 
were  unable  to  bring  our  minds  to  a  satisfactory  con- 
clusion whether  the  objection  was  well  or  ill  founded. 
We  required  the  aid  of  the  Committee  on  Canons.  We 
raised  the  objection  at  once  that  we  should  be  instruct- 
ed, before  we  go  any  furthei',  by  that  committee,  se- 
lected for  the  express  purpose  of  defining  the  constitu- 
tion of  this  House,  and  on  whose  judgment  I  should  be 
willing  to  rely.  With  all  possible  respect  for  our  Right 
Reverend  Fathers,  the  House  of  Bi.shops,  I  doubt  wheth- 
er they  have  examined  that  question  with  the  scrutiny 
it  will  receive  from   the  Committee  on  Canons  of  this 


18 


House.  I,  therefore,  support  the  motion  to  postpone 
until  that  Committee  on  Canons  can  thoroughly  exam- 
ine the  subject  in  order  that  we  may  not  deliberately 
violate  the  constitution  of  this  Church. 

The  president  decided  the  motion  of  Dr.  Goodwin  to 
postpone  out  of  order,  since  it  was  not  to  postpone  to  a 
definite  time  nor  "indefinitely." 

The  question  then  recurred  on  the  adoption  of  the 
substitute  offered  bj-  Judge  Otis. 

Mr.  Wilder,  of  Minnesota. — I  desire  to  say  prima- 
rily, that  the  substitute  really  amounts  to  nothing  ;  it 
is  a  perfect  nonentity.  We  understand  that  tlie  House 
of  Bishops  have  admitted  the  Diocese  of  Nebraska  to 
union  with  this  body.  The  substitute  is  offered  to  pre- 
serve our  dignity  and  self-respect.  In  my  humble 
judgment  our  dignity  and  self-respect  will  be  preserved 
by  adopting  the  original  resolution  as  it  came  from  the 
hands  of  the  Committee  on  New  Dioceses.  I  do  not 
think  we  are  pre-eminently  profound  in  legal  or  canon- 
ical lore  beyond  the  House  of  Bishops.  I  do  not  think 
that  the  use  of  the  word  Council  instead  of  the  word 
Convention  is  of  such  essential  and  material  importance 
as  that  we  may  not  consistently  with  self-respect  and 
consistently  with  its  duty  to  the  constitution  of  the 
Church,  harmonize  our  action  with  the  action  of  the 
House  of  Bishops.  What  conceivable  reason  is  there 
that  this  Diocese  of  Nebraska  may  not  be  admitted  into 
union  with  this  body  ?  Simply  and  alone  because  it 
has  made  its  legislative  body  a  council  instead  of  a 
convention.  That  is  all  there  is  of  it.  Gentlemen  may 
criticise,  they  may  split  hairs,  they  may  talk  about 
constitutional  and  canonical  law,  but  the  question  is 
simply  whether  the  Diocese  of  Nebraska  has  the  right 
to  change  the  name  Convention  to  that  of  Council.  It 
is  simply  said  that  the  Church  of  the  Diocese  of  Ne- 
braska desire  that  their  legislative  body  shall  be  known 
as  and  called  the  Council  of  the  Diocese  of  the  Protes- 
tant Episcopal  Church  in  Nebraska  instead  of  a  Conven- 
tion. I  humbly  submit,  with  all  deference  to  the  opin- 
ions of  gentlemen  more  learned  and  experienced,  that 
whatever  seems  to  be  anything  more  than  that  is  hy- 
percritical and  the  very  embodiment  of  pre-eminent 
technicality.     [Laughter]. 

Judge  Otis  then  withdrew  the  proviso  and  moved  to 
lay  the  substitute  on  the  table ;  which  motion  was  car- 
ried. 

Judge  Otis  moved  that  this  House  take  up  the  mes- 
sage of  the  House  of  Bishops ;  which  motion  was 
adopted. 

Rev.  Dr.  Howe. — I  will  occupy  the  time  of  the  House 
but  a  single  moment.  I  shall  vote  against  concurrence, 
with  very  great  regret,  for  I  desire  to  admit  the  Dio- 
cese of  Nebraska,  and  when  I  hear  it  reiterated  in  the 
very  last  speech  that  has  been  made  upon  this  floor 
that  the  simple  question  is  whether  we  shall  admit  them 
as  the  Council  of  the  Church  in  Nebraska,  or  the  Con- 
vention of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  Dio- 


cese of  Nebraska,  then  I  am  obliged  to  say  I  cannot 
vote  for  the  admission  because  I  find  those  terms  in  the 
constitution  of  this  Church,  and  I  am  not  ignorant  of 
that  fact. 

The  President  stated  the  question  to  be  on  concur- 
rence with  the  House  of  Bishops,  when 

Rev.  Dr.  Norton,  of  Virginia,  moved  to  amend  the 
resolution  by  the  insertion  of  the  words  Protestant  Epis- 
copal before  the  word  Church.     When 

A  Deputy  moved  to  amend  the  amendment  by 
adding  the  proviso  withdrawn  by  Judge  Otis,  which 
motion  was  seconded. 

The  President  decided  a  question  of  order  that  the 
resolution  from  the  House  of  Bishops  can  be  amended. 

Ret.  Dr.  Norton  accepted  the  proviso  offered  by 
Judge  Otis. 

After  remarks  by  Rev.  Dr.  Adams,  and  by  another 
deputy. 

The  President  said  :  The  original  motion  was  to  con- 
cur in  the  resolution  from  the  House  of  Bishops.  An 
amendment  has  been  offered  to  that  to  insert  the  words, 
"  Protestant  Episcopal "  before  the  word  Church  in 
that  resolution. 

Question  being  taken  upon  that  amendment,  and  a 
division  having  been  called  for,  it  was  declared  lost. 

The  question  then  recurred  upon  amending  the  res- 
olution of  the  House  of  Bishops  by  adding  the  proviso 
offered  by  Judge  Otis. 

A  motion  to  refer  to  a  special  Committee  was  laid 
upon  the  table. 

The  question  recurred  upon  the  proviso  as  an  amend- 
ment ;  the  vote  being  taken,  at  the  request  of  Rev.  Dr. 
Goodwin,  by  Dioceses  and  orders,  the  amendment 
was  declared  lost,  the  yeas  and  nays  being  almost  equal. 

The  question  recurred  upon  the  concurrence  with  the 
resolution  of  the  House  of  Bishops. 

A  motion  to  adjourn  having  been  lost  the  vote  upon 
the  question  was  taken  by  Dioceses  and  Orders,  and 
resulted  in  its  adoption  by  a  large"majority. 

FOURTH    DAT. 

Saturday,  October  10th,  1868. 

The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

The  Morning  Prayers  were  read  by  the  Rev.  J.  Mitch- 
ell, of  Alabama,  and  the  Rev.  Dr.  Beardsley,  of  Con- 
necticut. 

The  benediction  was  pronounced  by  Bishop  Mcllvaine. 

The  House  was  called  to  order  at  1 1  o'clock. 

The  names  of  delegates  not  previously  present  were 
called. 

The  journal  of  yesterday's  proceedings  was  then  read 
and  approved. 

Kev.  Dr.  Goodwin  moved  to  refer  to  the  Committee 
on  Canons  a  resolution  adopted  by  the  Diocese  of  Penn- 
sylvania with  reference  to  the  appointment  by  the  Bishop 
of  a  permanent  committee  of  presbyters  to  examine  can- 
didates for  orders.     Referred. 


19 


A  deputy  from  INIaryland  presented  the  memorial  of 
the  diocese  of  Miiryland  with  reference  to  the  division  of 
that  diocese.  Referred  to  the  Committee  on  New  Dio- 
ceses. 

MOTIONS    AND    RESOLUTIONS. 

Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin  presented  a  memorial  signed  by  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Muhlenberg-  and  others  with  reference  to  the 
construction  of  Section  0,  Canon  12,  Title  I.,  in  regard 
to  the  ofiiciating  of  ministers  within  certain  territorial 
limits.     Referred  to  the  Committee  on  Canons. 

Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin  presented  another  memorial  signed 
by  Rev.  Dr.  Muhlenberg  and  others,  asking  that  Canon 
11,  Title  I.,  be  repealed.  Referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Canons. 

A  deputy  offered  the  following  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  the  Coniiiiittee  of  Arrangements  be,  and 
they  are  hereby,  requested  to  iulbnii  this  House  why  there 
was  no  music  at  the  services  this  inonnug,  and  whether  the 
services  for  the  remainder  of  the  session  are  to  be  conducted 
in  the  same  manner. 

Rev.  Dr.  Bailey,  of  the  diocese  of  Vermont,  presented 
a  petition  and  accompanying  resolutions  from  the  diocese 
of  Vermont,  asking  permission  of  the  General  Conven- 
tion for  the  taking  of  a  copy,  b}-  the  Rev.  Dr.  Bailey,  of 
the  late  Bishop  Burgess's  list  of  names  of  persons  ad- 
mitted to  Deacon's  orders  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  from  the  time  of  its  estab- 
lishment down  to  a  comparatively  recent  date. 

Similar  petitions  having  been  presented  from  the  dio- 
cese of  Maine,  on  motion,  these  memorials  and  resolu- 
tions were  referred  to  a  special  committee  of  three,  sub- 
sequently appointed  by  the  President. 

Rev.  Dr.  Stubbs,  from  Illinois,  asked  to  have  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Canons  a  proposed  alteration  of 
Canon  13,  Title  I.,  Section  14,  on  page  58  of  the  last 
Journal  of  the  Convention. 

An  amendment  was  accepted  asking  the  Committee  on 
Canons  to  inquire  what  are  " e.xtraordinary  occasions;" 
and  another  amendment  was  accepted,  which  was  pro- 
posed by  Rev.  Dr.  Gkoodwin.  that  the  Committee  on  Can- 
ons should  inquire  whether  any  change  be  necessary  to 
make  the  Canon  referred  to  and  Canon  20,  on  page  69 
of  the  Journal  consistent.  The  resolution  was  then 
referred. 

Rev.  Dr.  Stubbs  offered  a  resolution  that  no  church 
or  chapel  shall  be  consecrated  at  any  time  before  suffi- 
cient evidence  be  furnished  to  the  Bisliop  that  the  build- 
ing to  be  consecratedis  free  from  debt,  and  that  a  church 
once  consecrated  to  the  serrice  and  worship  of  Almighty 
God  shall  be  separated  from  all  unhallowed,  worldly,  and 
common  uses,  and  that  it  shall  not  be  removed,  or  dis- 
posed of,  or  taken  down,  unless  permission  be  first  ob- 
tained from  the  Bishop  acting  by  the  advice  and  with 
the  consent  of  tlie  Standing  Committee  of  the  diocese, 
and  that  the  title  to  such  consecrated  building  shall  be  so 
secured  that  it  can  not  be  ahenated  by  sale,  without  the 
consent  of  the  Church.  Referred  to  the  Coaunittce  on 
Canons. 


Rev.  Dr.  Stubbs  presented  a  resolution  from  the  Dio- 
cesan Convention  of  Illinois  in  favor  of  the  early  adop- 
tion of  a  provincial  system  of  Clhurch  organization,  and 
in  favor  of  changing  the  name  Convention  to  Council. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight,  from  the  Committee  on  Canons,  re- 
ported that  the  committee  having  considered  the  said 
memorials,  are  unanimously  of  the  opinion  that  it  is  in- 
expedient at  the  present  time  for  the  General  Convention 
to  enter  upon  the  subject  thus  presented,  and  accordingly 
they  recommend  no  action  cm  the  part  of  this  House, 
and  ask  to  be  discharged  from  the  further  consideration 
of  the  subject. 

On  motion,  the  committee  were  discharged. 

Hon.  S.  B.  Ruggles,  of  the  diocese  of  New  York,  of- 
fered the  following  resolution : 

Rt'nolved,  That  there  be  a  Standing  Committee  of  this 
House,  to  cousist  of  five  clerical  and  tour  lay  deputies,  to  be 
deiioininated  the  Committee  on  the  Foreign  Kelations  of  the 
Chuivli,  who  shall  consider  ami  report  upon  any  proposition 
or  sulijcet  connected  with  the  intercourse,  iutfrcommimion, 
or  synodical  union  of  this  Church  with  any  other  portion  of 
the  Church  Catholic  throughout  the  world. 

On  motion,  the  resolution  was  laid  on  the  table  until 
Wednesday  next  at  12  o'clock,  when  it  is  made  the  order 
of  the  day. 

Rev.  Dr.  Abercrombie,  of  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey, 
offered  the  following  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  Canon  20,  Title  I.,  be  amended  by  adding 
"but  whereas  peculiar  circumstances  niay  exist  in  some  par- 
ishes or  missionary  stations  which  may  ren(fer  deviation 
fioin  the  prescribed  forms  of  the  Morning  or  Evening 
Prayer  expedient  on  special  occasions,  therefore,  the  bish- 
ops of  this  Church  shall  have  power  in  their  respective  dio- 
ceses to  allow,  for  such  special  occasions,  selections  from 
the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  approved  by  themselves,  to  be 
used  instead  of  the  prescribed  forms  of  the  Morning  or 
Evening  Prayer." 

Referred  to  the  Committee  on  Canons. 

Rev.  Mr.  Harrold,  of  the  diocese  of  Florida,  moved 
an  amendment  to  the  eB'ect  that  the  House  of  Bishops 
be  requested  to  set  forth  a  service  which  may  be  used  on 
other  occasions  of  public  worship  than  Sundays. 

The  President  suggested  that  the  resolution  should  be 
presented  as  a  separate  one. 

Dr.  Abercrombie's  resolution  was  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Canons. 

The  following  resolution  was  referred  to  the  mentioned 
committee: 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Prayer-Book  be  in- 
structed to  inquire  whether  the  last  perioil  but  one  in  that 
part  of  the  Holy  Communion  Office  known  as  the  Invoca- 
tion, ending  with  the  words,  "That  He  may  dwell  in  them 
and  tliey  in  Him,"  does  not  contain  a  grammatical  inaccu- 
racy, originating  in  a  typographical  error,  and  whether  the 
words  ought  not  to  be  "That  He  inav  dwell  in  us  and  we  in 
Him." 

A  resolution  was  adopted  inviting  to  seats  in  the  Con- 
vention clerical  i-epresentatives  of  the  Church  in  foreign 
countries  who  might  now  be  in  the  city. 

The  following  resolution  was  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Canons. 

Resolved,  Th.at  it  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Canons 


20 


to  inquire  whether  any  change  is  required  in  section  5, 
Canon  13,  Title  1,  relative  to  the  election  of  assistant 
Bishops,  anil  if  so,  report  the  same  to  this  House,  in  shape 
for  their  action. 

Rev.  Dr.  Stubbs,  of  New  Jersey — I  beg  to  refer  to 
the  Committee  on  Canons,  Canon  13,  Title  1,  para- 
graph 5.  The  section  reads  (p.  50  of  the  last  Journal)  : 
Any  Bishop  or  Bishops  elected  and  consecrated  under 
this  section,  shall  be  entitled  to  a  seat  in  the  House  of 
Bishops,  and  shall  be  eligible  to  the  office  of  Diocesan 
Bishop  in  any  unorganized  Diocese  within  the  United 
States;  and  whenever  a  Diocese  shall  be  organized  with- 
in the  jurisdiction  of  such  Bishop,  if  he  shall  be  chosen 
Bishop  of  such  Diocese,  he  may  accept  the  office  without 
vacating  his  missionary  appointment,  provided,"  &c.  The 
alteration  I  propose  is  this  :  "  Any  Bishop  elected  and 
consecrated  under  this  section  shall  be  entitled  to  a  seat 
in  the  House  of  Bishops."  I  propose  to  omit  the  other 
part  of  that  paragraph.  Then  to  the  other  part :  "  And 
whenever  a  Diocese  shall  have  been  organized  within 
the  jurisdiction  of  such  Missionary  Bishop,"  I  propose  to 
add  :  "  he  shall  be  the  Bishop  of  such  Diocese,  and  he 
may  accept  the  office  without  vacating  his  missionary 
appointment."  I  propose  this  for  the  consideration  of 
the  Committee  on  Canons.  If  it  should  meet  with  their 
favorable  consideration  and  the  favorable  consideration 
of  this  House,  it  will  prevent,  1  think,  one  of  the  great- 
est evils  to  which  this  Church  is  now  exposed — namely, 
that  of  the  translation  of  Bishops. 

Mr.  Wallace,  of  the  Diocese  of  Missouri,  offered  the 
following  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Canons  be  requested  to 
inquire  into  the  expediency  of  reporting  such  anieudmeut 
to  Canons  9  and  10,  Title  1,  as  shall  remove  therefrom  the 
discriminations  made  in  favor  of  ministers  ordained  by  Bish- 
ops not  in  communion  with  this  Church  and  against  minis- 
ters ordained  in  foreign  countries  by  Bishops  in  commun- 
ion with  this  Church,  when  such  ministers  desire  admission 
to  the  communion  of  the  Araercian   branch  of  the  Church. 

Referred. 

Rev.  Dr.  Littlejohn — offered  the  following  reso- 
lution, referred  to  the  above  mentioned  Committee  : 

Resolved,  That  the  third  article  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
Board  of  Missions  be  referred  to  the  Domestic  and  Foreign 
Missionary  Committee  of  this  House,  to  inquire  if  there  be 
any  ambiguity  of  expression  in  article  third,  seriously  im- 
pairing the  sense  thereof;  and  if  there  be  such  ambiguity, 
to  report  such  changes  of  phraseology  as  may  be  necessary 
to  remove  it. 

Rev.  Mr.  Harkold,  of  Florida,  offered  the  following 
preamble  and  resolution : 

Whereas,  it  has  been  found  difficult  to  fulfill  the  daily 
order  for  Morning  and  Evening  prayer  because  of  the 
supposed  length  of  the  services  alike  burdensome  to  the 
clergy  and  people  under  the  present  social  arrange- 
ments, and  whereas  many  of  the  clergy  and  people  are 
desirous  of  enjoying  the  privilege  of  daily  prayer. 

Resolved,  That  the  House  of  Bishops  be  requested  to 
prepare  a  service  for  morning  and  evening  use  as  nearly 
after  the  short  Matin  and  Evening  song  services  of  the 
primative  times  as  shall  seem  to  them  best  which  shall 
be  allowed  tor  use  on  other  days  than  Sunday. 


On  motion  of*  Rev.  J.  S.  Hanckel,  of  South  Carolina, 
this  I'csolution  was  laid  on  the  table. 

Rev.  Mr.  Haheold  was  permitted  to  explain  that  he 
did  not  say  that  the  services  were  burdensome  but  al- 
luded to  the  supposition  of  others.  His  object  was  to 
show  that  he  disapproved  of  that  and  that  it  was  disap- 
proved of  by  those  who  voted  to  sustain  the  resolution. 
It  was  not  his  intention  to  express  an  idea  against  the 
services,  but  to  meet  every  sftpposable  case  he  offered 
the  resolution. 

Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin — moved  that  when  the  hour  of 
recess  arrives  the  House  adjourn  to  Monday  morning, 
at  10  o'clock. 

Rev.  Mr.  M'Kim,  of  the  diocese  of  Delaware,  offered 
the  following  resolution : 

Resohed,  as  the  opinion  of  this  House  of  Clerical  and 
Lay  Deputies,  that  so  long  as  the  sittings  of  this  convention 
continue  to  be  held  in  Trinity  Chapel  no  departure  be  made 
from  the  usiial  method  which  obtains  in  said  parish  of  ren- 
dering the  musical  parts  of  the  services  in  the  order  for 
daily  morning  prayer  and  resolved  that,  the  House  of  Bish- 
ops concurring,  the  choir  of  Trinity  Chapel  be,  and  is  here- 
by requested  to  give  their  assistance  in  the  music  as  here- 
tofore during  the  session  of  this  convention. 

On  motion  the  resolution  was  laid  upon  the  table  ac- 
cording to  the  decision  of  the  President,  and  a  division 
being  called  for,  the  motion  prevailed. 

Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin — asked  for  a  division  of  the 
question,  but  the  President  decided  that  there  was  no 
time,  as  the  hour  for  adjourning  had  nearly  arrived,  to 
entertain  the  motion. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight.  I  desire  to  say  one  word  in  ex- 
planation of  what  has  happened.  I  wish  to  be  distinctly 
understood  that  the  change  made  in  the  nmsical  part  of 
the  services  was  not  made  by  the  request  directly  of  any 
person  or  persons  connected  with  this  convention,  but 
that  my  Reverend  brother  who  is  in  charge  of  this 
chapel  as  assistant  minister,  having  understood  that  the 
consciences  of  certain  members  of  this  convention  were 
troubled  by  our  boys  appearing  to  t^ke  their  part  in  di- 
vine worship  in  the  accustomed  manner,  stated  that  he 
would,  of  bis  own  motion,  request  them  not  to  appear 
this  morning,  for  the  sake  of  peace,  that  this  convention 
might  not  be  disturbed  with  questions  of  this  sort.  It 
was  a  great  sacrifice  lor  him  to  make.  It  was  a  great 
sacrifice  on  the  part  of  the  people  of  this  chapel  who 
come  here  from  morning  to  morning.  To  me  it  is  a 
great  sacrifice,  as  one  of  the  ministers  of  this  parish,  ac- 
customed to  worship  here  day  after  day.  But  if  there  are 
those  in  this  House  who  cannot  come  here  and  worship 
Almighty  God  according  to  our  mode,  then  I,  for  one, 
though  I  cannot  understand  such  feelings  and  never  had 
them  myself  in  going  into  another  parish,  am  willing  to 
make  the  sacrifice  ;  and  my  brethren  are  willing ;  and 
so  are  my  people  of  this  chapel.  That  is  the  whole 
statement  of  the  case.  What  might  have  been  done  if 
ray  brother  had  not  taken  this  course,  I  do  not  know. 
I  fear  that  something  unpleasant  would  have  happened; 


21 


but  I  thank  God  that  nothing  has  happened  except  the 
manifestations  of  the  bitterness  of  some  members  of,  this 
House  to-day. 

The  President — declared  the  House  adjourned  to 
10  o'clock  on  Monday  morning. 

FIFTH    day's    proceedings. 

Monday,  Oct.  12th,  1868. 

The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

The  Morning  Prayers  were  read  by  Rey.  Dr.  Adams, 
of  Wisconsin,  and  Rev.  W.  C.  Williams,  of  Georgia. 

The  Benediction  was  pronounced  by  Bishop  Wliit- 
tingham. 

The  journal  of  Saturday's  proceedings  was  read  and 
approved. 

REPORTS    OF    COMMITTEES. 

Rev.  Dr.  Thomas  0.  Pitkin,  from  the  Committee  on 
New  Dioceses,  reported  in  favor  of  the  division  of  the 
Diocese  of  Maryland  by  the  formation  within  its  limits 
of  a  new  Diocese,  the  name  of  the  new  Diocese  to  be 
determined  by  the  Diocesan  Convention,  with  the  con- 
currence of  the  Bishop  and  the  Standing  Committee  of 
the  Diocese  of  Maryland  ;  the  division  to  take  effect 
when  the  Bishop  shall  call  the  Convention. 

On  motion  the  preamble  and  resolution  reported  by 
the  committee  were  adopted. 

PETITIONS    AND    MEMORIALS. 

Rev.  Dr.  Alfred  Stubbs  presented  a  memorial  from 
the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  on  the  subject  of  clerical 
support. 

Mr.  William  Welsh,  from  the  Diocese  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, moved  that  arrangements  be  made  for  holding 
the  session  of  the  House  to-morrow  morning  in  the 
Church  of  the  Transfiguration. 

Mr.  Lacey  moved  to  lay  this  motion  on  the  table. 
Lost. 

A  motion  to  indefinitely  postpone  the  subject  was 
withdrawn,  and  substituted  with 

A  motion  to  refer  the  subject  to  the  Joint  Committee 
on  Removal,  with  instruction  to  report  as  early  as 
practicable.     Adopted. 

ORDER   OF    THE    DAY. 

The  President  announced  as  the  order  of  the  day 
— the  election  of  a  committee  on  the  part  of  the  House 
to  co-operate  with  the  Committee  of  the  House  of  Bish- 
ops in  nominating  a  Board  of  Foreign  Missions. 

On  motion,  balloting  was  dispensed  with,  and 

On  nomination,  by  Rev.  Dr.  Littlejohn,  the  following 
named  gentlemen  were  elected  as  said  Committee  : 

Rev.  Dr.  Paddock,  of  the  Diocese  of  Michigan. 

Rev.  Dr.  Huntington,  of  the  Diocese  of  Massachusetts. 

Rev.  Mr.  Pierce,  of  the  Diocese  of  Alabama. 

Judge  Otis,  of  the  Diocese  of  Illinois. 

Judge  Battle,  of  the  Diocese  of  North  Carolina. 

Mr.  McWhorter,  of  the  Diocese  of  Western  N.  York. 

Mr.  Wm.  Welsh,  of  the  Diocese  of  Pennsylvania. 


Rev.  Dr.  Stubbs  again  presented  the  Memorial  from 
the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  based  upon  a  resolution  of- 
fered by  Mr.  Ruggles  at  the  session  X  this  Convention 
in  1865,  namely — 

Resolved,  On  the  part  of  the  Lay  Deputies  of  this  House, 
in  view  of  the  increased  cost  of  living,  it  is  the  opinion  of 
.the  lay  niembci-s  of  the  House  that  the  salarie's  of  the  Clergy 
ought  to  be  increased  at  lea,st  one-half  from  the  amount 
heretofore  paid  in  coin. 

On  motion,  the  memorial  was  referred  to  a  Special 
Committee  of  five  Lay  Deputies. 

A  message  from  the  House  of  Bishops,  informed  the 
House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  that  the  House  of 
Bishops  had  appointed  a  committee  of  three  Bishops  to 
act  with  the  Committee  of  the  House  of  Clerical  and 
Lay  Deputies,  as  a  Joint  Committee  to  nominate  a 
Board  of  Missions. 

Rev.  Dr.  Theodore  Babcock  presented  the  following 
resolution,  unanimously  adopted  by  the  Diocese  of 
Western  New  York,  at  its  annual  session  in  August, 
186T: 

-Resolved,  That  the  General  Convention  be  requested  to 
enact  a  permissive  Canon,  authorizing  a  general  council 
of  the  Dioceses  of  the  State  of  New  York.  Referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Canons. 

Judge  Conyngham,  of  the  Diocese  of  Pennsyl- 
vania : — I  hold  in  my  hands  a  number  of  memorials — 
twenty  or  more — which  have  been  sent  to  me  to  pre- 
sent to  this  House.  They  are  signed  by  a  large  num- 
ber of  individuals  calling  themselves  Laymen  of  this 
Church.  They  represent  that,  in  certain  instances,  their 
rights  as  Churchmen  are  affected,  and  conceiving  this 
convention  to  be  the  proper  source  of  relief,  they  send 
their  memorials  here,  upon  the  same  principle  that, 
when  civil  rights  are  affected,  we  apply  by  petition  or 
memorial  to  the  civil  authorities.  They  apply  to  this 
House,  or  rather  to  the  two  Houses  in  convention  as- 
sembled here,  for  the  purpose  of  seeing  whether  it  is 
proper  that  any  remedy  should  be  furnished  them,  or 
whether  they  need  any  remedy. 

I  will  read,  by  the  permission  of  the  House,  one  of 
the  memorials,  and  then  will  submit  the  form  of  a  canon 
that  has  been  sent  to  me,  or  rather  one  that  has  been 
somewhat  modified  by  myself,  merely  as  the  basis  of  ac- 
tion for  the  committee  to  whom  it  will  be  referred — the 
committee  on  canons  rather  than  for  any  other  purpose. 
In  relation  to  that  matter,  I  hold  my  own  opinions,  not 
considering  myself  bound  by  anything  ofi'ered  in  the 
present  memorials.  My  own  action  will  depend  upon 
my  own  judgment  in  regard  to  the  propriety  of  the  ac" 
tion  here  asked  lor.  [Judge  Conyngham  then  read  the 
Memorial].  I  have  read  one  of  these  memorials.  As  a 
basis  for  the  action  of  the  committee  I  would  submit  a 
canon  for  the  purpose  of  their  consideration  embodying 
some  suggestions  to  which,  as  understood,  the  memo- 
rialists refer: 

Cj.vo.n  on  the  Manner  of  Conducting  Divine  Worshii-. 
Section  I.    No  ministerial   vestments   shall   be  worn   bv 


22 


any  minister  during  divine  worship  or  when  present  at  or 
officiating  in  any  rites  or  ceremony  of  this  Church  excepting 
surplice,  stole,  barj^ls  or  gown,  which  shall  be  used  as 
heretofore  accustomed  on  the  regular  occasions  of  worship, 
and  at  the  discretion  of  the  minister  may  be  used  at  rites  and 
ceremonies;  and  no  ecclesiastical  vestment  shall  be  worn 
on  occasion  of  divine  worship  or  Church  ceremonials  by 
choirs  or  other  assistants  therein,  provided  this  section  shall 
not  be  construed  to  relate  to  Episcopal  vestments. 

SECTion  II.  Candlesticks,  crucifixes,  super-altars  so  call- 
ed, made  of  wood,  metal,  or  other  substances,  shall  not  be 
used,  or  suffered  to  stand  upon  or  hang  from  any  Com. 
raunion-table  as  part  of  the  furniture  or  decorations  thereof. 

Section  III.  Bowing  at  the  name  of  Jesus,  except  in 
repeating  the  Creed  ;  turning  or  bowing  towards  the  Com- 
munion-table except  so  far  as  now  enjoined  by  the  Rubric  ; 
making  the  sign  of  the  Cross,  except  in  baptism  ;  the  eleva- 
tion of  either  of  the  elements  during  Holy  Conujiunion,  or 
of  the  alms  or  oblations  of  communicants  ;  processional 
singing  in  churches  except  as  provided  by  the  Rubrics  ;  and 
the  use  of  incense  in  and  during  the  conducting  of  Divine 
service — are  all  hereby  declared  unlawful. 

Judge  Convngham,  continuing; — Mr  President,  I 
move  that  these  memorials  and  the  proposed  Canon  be  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  Canons  to  report  thereon.  1 
have  nothing  to  say  further  than  that  these  gentlemen — 
and  there  is  a  large  number  of  them,  some  of  whom  I 
know  to  be  highly  respectable  and  of  high  standing  in 
our  Church,  as  laity — present  these  memorials  for  the 
consideration  of  this  House.  They  are  entitled  to  a 
hearing.  They  desire  that  this  subject  may  be  submit- 
ted to  the  proper  authority. 

Rev.  Charles  Breok — inquired  whether  the  several 
memorials  were  verbally  the  same. 

Judge  Conyngham — replied  that  they  were,  except 
that,  in  some,  the  words  "in  this  diocese  and  other  dio- 
ceses" were  erased. 

Rev.  Charles  Breck.- — I  will  make  a  few  remarks 
concerning  the  memorials  from  Delaware.  They  came, 
as  I  understand,  from  the  City  of  New  York.  The  me- 
morial declares  that  "there  is  great  scandal  and  dissen- 
sion in  the  Diocese  of  Delaware  on  account  of  this  varie- 
ty of  worship,  dress,  &c.,  in  the  Church."  I  read  this 
memorial  the  day  before  I  came  to  this  Convention.  I 
read  it  to  the  Bishop  of  the  Diocese.  I  took  it  to  one  or 
two  gentlemen  who  had  been  circulating  it,  and  I  asked 
them  whether  it  was  true  that  there  had  been  any  scan- 
dal or  dissension  in  the  Diocese  of  Delaware,  and  they 
had  to  acknowledge  there  was  none  ;  and  they  said  that 
this  paper  had  been  hastily  signed,  they  were  busy,  and 
had  not  time  to  reflect  upon  it,  etc.  T  object  most 
solemnly  to  kuch  papers  being  sent  into  dioceses  that 
are  at  peace,  papers  concocted  in  the  City  of  New 
York,  and  sent  down  to  our  people  to  be  signed,  to  be 
brought  in  here  to  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Canons. 

Judge  Conyngham, — I  now  hold  one  of  these  memo- 
rials signed  by  a  number  of  gentlemen  from  Wilming- 
ton, Del.  There  is  an  erasure  of  the  words  "in  this 
Diocese." 

Rev.  Mr.  Breck. — 1  can  tell  this  Convention  that  I 
have  been  informed   by  a  number  of  gentlemen   who 


signed  the  memorial  that  they  would  not  have  touched 
that  paper  if  they  had  i-eflected  upon  it.  The  erasure 
has  been  made  because  I  drew  their  attention  to  it.  I, 
therefore,  submit  to  this  House  whether  such  papers  sent 
from  a  city  outside  of  a  diocese  to  create  dissension  and 
division  in  that  diocese,  should  even  be  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Canons.  At  any  rate,  I  feel  bound  to 
make  these  statements  that  the  committee  may  know 
what  they  are  acting  upon. 

The  House  then  took  a  recess ;  after  which — 
Judge  Battle — moved  to  postpone  the  subject  of 
the    reference  of    the  memorials  presented    by   Judge 
Conyngham,   to  allow  the   Committee  on  Removal   to 
report.     Adopted. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mahan — on  behalf  of  the  committee  charg- 
ed with  the  selection  of  a  place  for  the  daily  sessions  of 
the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  to  whom  was 

recommitted  a  former  report,  reported 

First — That  a  place  possessiug  better  acoustic  qualities 
[than  Trinity  Cliapel]  cau  be  secured  at  the  Church  of  the 
Transfiguration,  29th  St.,  5th  Avenue,  which  has  been  kind- 
ly tendered  since  the  former  report. 

Secondly — That  the  place  now  offered  for  our  use,  while 
possessing  all  the  advantages  of  the  one  previously  men- 
tioned [St.  Mark's  Church],  has  the  additional  recommenda- 
tion of  being  within  easier  reach  of  the  House  of  Bishops. 

Your  committee,  therefore,  recommend  the  adoption 
of  the  following  resolutions : 

Resolved,  That,  the  House  of  Bishops  concurring,  af- 
ter the  recess  to-morrow,  this  House  meet  for  its  future 
sessions  at  the  Church  of  the  Transfiguration. 

Rfsoloed,  That  the  cordial  thanks  of  this  convention  be 
tendered  to  the  Rector,  Wardens,  and  Vestrymen  of  Trinity 
Chapel  for  their  generous  and  hospitable  provision  for  the 
comfort  of  both  Houses,  and  also  to  the  Committee  of  Ar- 
rangements for  their  indefatigable  exertions  and  kind 
attentions. 

Resolved,  That  Mr.  William  Welsh,  and  the  Rev.  R.  M. 
Abercrombie  be  appointed  a  Committee  of  Arrangements. 

Many  deputies  expressed  their  appreciation  of  the 
liberality  and  assiduous  attentions  of  the  Rector,  Ward- 
ens, and  Vestrymen  of  Trinity  Chapel,  and  regretted 
that  the  requirements  of  the  convention  necessitated  a 
change  of  place. 

Upon  motion,  the  report  of  the  committee  was 
adopted. 

Gov.  Fisii — reported,  from  the  Committee  on  Canons, 
certain  proposed  amendments  of  the  Constitution  and 
Canons.  Of  them  he  said  :  The  Convention  will  observe 
that  the  committee  recommend  the  transfer  from  the 
constitution  to  a  canon  of  that  portion  of  Article  5  of 
the  constitution  which  wai  complained  of  [by  various 
memorials  referred  to  the  committee]  as  too  restrictive 
in  the  formation  of  new  dioceses.  In  proposing  the 
transfer  from  the  constitution  to  a  canon,  they  also  pro- 
pose to  eliminate  requirements  that  the  requisite  number 
of  existing  parishes  shall  be  self  supporting  and  to  re- 
duce the  number  now  required  from  fifteen  to  six.  la 
other  respects,  the  canon  as  proposed  by  them  will  be 


23 


the  same  as  the  present  provision  of  the  constitution. 
As  a  substitute  in  the  (.■onstitutiou  for  this  restriction 
thus  taken  out,  they  propose  that  every  new  diocese 
shall  make  before  consent  is  given  to  its  creation  some 
provision  for  the  support  of  the  episcopate,  to  be  ap- 
proved by  the  convention.  There  is  also  some  verbal 
amendment,  to  remove  question  as  to  whether  a  diocese 
may  be  divided  into  more  than  two  dioceses. 

On  motion,  this  report  was  made  the  order  of  the  day 
for  Thursday,  at  1 2  o'clock. 

The   subject  of  the  reference   of  the  memorials  pre- 
sented liy  Judge  Conyngham  being  under  consideration. 

Rev.  Dr.  Adams  said  : — I  have  read  over  very  care- 
fully this  memorial  which  was  presented  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Pennsylvania  ;  and  I  find  that  it  is  respectful 
to  the  House  and  to  the  President,  and  Constitutional, 
as  I  suppose,  in  every  way.  I,  therefore,  can  have  no 
objection  whatsoever  to  its  reference  to  the  Commit- 
tee on  Canons.  I  have  also  listened  to  its  [proposed]  can- 
on, and  I  have  no  objection  to  its  reference  also.  But, 
at  the  same  time,  I  have  to  say  a  few  words  to  this  Con- 
vention, which  perhaps  will  make  clear  the  position  I  am 
going  to  take  when  the  matter  comes  into  debate,  which 
I  suppose  it  will  do  when  the  Committee  on  Canons  re- 
port. I  take  it  that  this  Church  to  which  we  belong  is 
a  National  Church,  according  to  the  doctrines  laid  down 
by  Murray  Hotfman,  the  most  distinguished  of  our  can- 
onists hitherto,  atid  has  a  right  to  decide  upon  her  own 
rites  and  ceremonies  and  vestments.  I  take  it,  also,  that 
the  matter  on  hand  is  simply  a  matter  of  aberration  on 
the  right  and  on  the  left.  There  is  a  certain  class 
of  men  who  have  perhaps  made  a  movement  towards 
Geneva — men  who  are  Calvinistically  inclined.  They 
have  had  their  ritualism — (I  must  say  I  know  something 
about  it)  ;  and  a  strange  ritualism  it  is  indeed,  and  just 
as  contradictory  of  the  canons  and  rubrics  and  laws  of 
the  Church,  as  the  ritualism  on  the  other  side.  I  will 
say,  therefore,  that  1  calculate  that  in  this  House,  when 
the  debate  comes  on,  as  come  it  must,  there  will  be  fair- 
ness and  honesty.  We  should  intend  to  make  as  much 
allowance  for  one  side  as  for  the  other.  We  should 
make  no  laws  that  shall  oppress  or  stigmatize  one  side 
as  uncanonical,  unrubiical,  unless  the  same  law  ap- 
plies in  the  same  way  to  the  other  party  ;  that  is  to  say, 
the  canon  or  legislation  should  be  in  favor  of  a  uni- 
form ritual  all  around.  1  will  also  say  that  1  think  that 
in  this  Church  and  in  this  House  there  is  such  a  degree 
of  honesty  and  fairness  that  when  the  discussion  com- 
mences, we,  the  General  Convention  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  will  be  found 
neither^n  one  side  nor  the  other,  but  in  behalf  and  on 
the  side  of  the  vast  body  of  the  Church  who  have  no  ten- 
dency towards  Unitarianism,  Romanism,  Methodism,  or 
Calvinism.  One  more  remark  I  would  make,  that  I 
think  it  is  very  likely  this  may  result  in  a  rather  excited 
debate,  in  which  we  may  worry  one  another  without  com- 
ing to  any  tangible  result — merely  laying  it  on  the  table. 


Itakethisopportnnity  of  declaring,  that  thedebate  will  af- 
ford the  Church  the  o])portunity  of  doing  what  every  oth- 
er Church  in  the  world  has  done — Greek,  Roman,  and 
every  other  Church — prescribing  a  proper  and  suitable 
ecclesiastical  set  of  vestments  for  its  clergy.  I  myself 
will  take  the  opportunity  of  bringing  this  question  up  in 
order  to  make  the  debate  fruitful,  if  the  House  gives 
permission.  I  think  we  ought  to  have  a  permanent 
committee  on  rites  and  rituals.  They  have  such  in  the 
Greek  and  in  the  Roman  Church  ;  and  I  think  we  ought  to 
have  such  here.  Instead  of  having  a  fruitless  debate 
in  which  gladiators  and  combatants  on  one  side  or 
another  will  worry  one  another  with  mutual  objurgations 
and  reproofs,  this  debate  when  it  comes,  ought  to  be 
fruitful ;  and,  therefore,  I  take  the  chance  of  saying  that 
I  think  we  ought  to  have  vestments  prescribed  for  the 
clergy  in  all  the  dioceses  of  the  Church,  and  that  we 
should  have  a  committee  on  rites  and  ceremonies.  Hav- 
ing made  this  explanation,  I  am  perfectly  content  that 
the  memorial  presented  by  Judge  Conyngham  and 
also  the  canon,  should  go  before  the  Committee  on 
Canons. 

Rev.  Mr.  Harrold,  of  the  Diocese  of  Florida — propos- 
ed to  offer  a  resolution  as  an  amendment. 

The  President  suggested  the  inconvenience  of  the 
course,  and  that  it  should  be  separately  offered — which 
suggestion  was  adopted  by  Rev.  Mr.  Harrold. 

The  President  announced  the  appointment  of  Rev. 
George  C.  Belts,  of  the  Diocese  of  Nebraska,  as  a  mem- 
ber  of  the  Committee  on  the  State  of  the  Church. 

The  Committee  on  Clerical  Salaries  was  announced 
as  follows : 

J.  }I.  Thompson,  M.  D.,  of  New  Jersey. 

Hon.  S.  B.  Ruggles,  of  New  York. 

Mr.  J.  AV.  VanNostrand,  of  Nebraska. 

Geo.  C.  Shattuck,  M.  D.,  of  Massachusetts. 

Mr.  B.  J.  Barbour,  of  Virginia. 

A  message  from  the  House  of  Bishops  gave  informa- 
tion of  their  concurrence  in  the  removal  of  the  House 
of  Deputies  to  the  Church  of  the  Transfiguration. 

Rev.  Mr.  Harrold,  of  Florida — offered  the  follow- 
ing resolution: 

Rexolred,  that  it  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Canons 
to  consider  the  question  oi"  departure  from  est.iolished  usage 
by  omission  of  any  portion  of  the  service  already  prescribed. 
Referred. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead— -offered  the  following  preamble 
and  resolution : 

^\lln^eas,  the  restoration  of  tlie  unity  of  the  Church  is  an 
object  of  vast  importance,  as  without  restored  unity  it  will 
be  impossible  for  licr  pert'ci'tly  to  fulfill  her  mission  or  to 
evangelize  the  world  ;  and — 

whereas,  in  the  opinion  of  many  the  signs  of  the  times 
clearly  indicate  that  there  is  a  strong  and  increasing  desire 
aniouK  the  churches  and  in  various  denominations  of  Chris- 
tiiins  in  Christendom  to  see  sueh  unity  restored — therefore — 

Resolved,  the  House  of  Hishops  concurring,  that  a  Joint 
('oniniittcp  of  tile  two  Houses  constituting  the  General  Con- 
vention, which  coniinittee  shall  consist  of  an  equal  number 
of  Bishops,  Presbyters,  and  Laymen,  be  appointed  as  an  or- 


24 


gan  of  communication  with  other  branches  of  the  Church 
and  with  different  Christian  bodies  who  may  desire  informa- 
tion or  conference  on  the  subject;  the  said  committee  to  be 
entitled  the  Commission  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  United  States  of  America  on  Church  Unity. 

Dr.  Mead — -moved  that  the  resolution  be  considered 
at  once. 

Mr.  Ruggles — said  that  the  resolution  offered  by 
him  on  the  10th  instant  for  the  appointment  by  this 
House  of  a  Committee  on  the  Foreign  affairs  of  the 
Church  had,  for  its  object,  to  secure  the  necessity  of  con- 
currence by  the  Clergy  and  the  Laity  of  this  House  with 
the  House  of  Bishops  in  any  proposed  Sy  nodical  Union 
of  this  Church  with  any  other  branch  of  the  Church 
Catholic.  That  resolution  was  made  the  order  of  the 
day  for  Wednesday  next.  Believing  that  the  present  res- 
olution would  more  directly  and  fully  effect  the  object 
desired,  he  would  now  move  to  withdraw  the  resolution 
offered  by  him  for  a  "  Committee  on  Foreign  affairs," 
and  would  second  the  motion  of  Dr.  Mead  that  the  con- 
templated joint  committee  of  Bishops,  Clergy  and  Laitj', 
be  considered  and  passed  at  once. 

The  resolution  was  therefore  passed  unanimously. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight — offered  a  resolution  to  inquire 
concerning  the  plates  of  the  Standard  Edition'of  the  Book 
of  Common  I'rayer,  and  whether  any  alterations  had 
been  made  therein,  and  if  so  what  they  are. 

Referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Prayer  Book. 

Rev.  Dr.  Cooke — -from  the  Committee  on  the  Conse- 
cration of  Bishops,  reported  that  the  testimonials  of  Rev. 
Chas.  F.  Robertson,  Bishop  elect  of  the  Diocese  of 
Missouri,  were  satisfactory,  and  offered  a  resolution  giv- 
ing consent  to  his  consecration. 

Which  /esolution  being  adopted,  the  Deputies  pro- 
ceeded to  sign  the  certificate  to  be  presented  to  the 
House  of  Bishops. 

A  message  from  the  House  of  Bishops  gave  informa- 
tion of  their  concurrence  in  the  division  of  the  Diocese 
of  Maryland. 

The  House  then  adjourned  to  10  o'clock  to-morrow. 

SIXTH    day's    proceedings, 

Tuesday,  October  13th,  1868. 

The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Morning  grayer  was  said  by  the  Rev.  Robert  A.  Hallam, 
D.  D.,  of  Connecticut,  and  the  Rev.   Chas.   Breck,  of 
Delaware. 

The  Benediction  was  pronounced  by  Bishop  White- 
house,  of  Illinois. 

The  Journal  of  yesterday's  proceedings  was  read  and 
approved. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead,  of  Connecticut,  offered  the  follow- 
ing resolution : 

Resolved,  that  the  secretary  of  this  House  be  and  is  here- 
by directed  to  transmit  to  the  House  of  Bishops  the  testi- 
monials in  favor  of  the  Rev.  Chas.  Franlilin  Robertson,  S. 
T.  D.,  Bishop  elect  of  the  Diocese  of  Missouri ;  the  said  testi- 
monials having  been  signed  by  a  constitutional  majority  of 
both  orders  of  this  House.     Adopted. 

Mr.  Welsh,  of  the  Committee  to  supervise  Removal 


of  the  Convention  to  the  Church  of  the  Transfiguration, 
reported  that  all  necessary  arrangements  had  been  made 
for  the  meeting  of  the  Convention  after  the  recess. 

The  Committee  on  Elections  reported  that  there  had 
been  laid  before  them  the  certificate  of  the  election  as 
Deputy  to  the  Convention,  of  Mr.  Frederick  W.  Brune, 
in  accordance  with  the  usages  of  the  Dioceses  of  Mary- 
land, and  that  he  is  entitled  to  a  seat  in  this  House. 
Rev.  Dr.  Haight — made  the  following  report: 
The  Committee  on  Canons  to  whom  was  referred  the 
memorial  concerning  section  6,  Canon  12,  Title  1,  having 
considered  the  same,  do  respectfully  report  the  following 
amendment  of  the  said  canon,  and  recommend  the  fol- 
lowing resolution  upon  the  subject  for  adoption  by  this 
House. 

Resolved,  the  House  of  Bishops  concurring,  that  section 
6  of  Canon  12,  Title  1,  of  the  digest  be  amended  by  insert- 
ing in  line  20  of  said  clause  immediately  after  the  words 
"shall  be  necessary  "  the  following  words,  namely,  "but 
nothing  in  this  cauon  shall  be  construed  to  prevent  any 
clergyman  of  this  Church  from  officiating  in  any  parish 
church  or  in  any  place  of  public  worship  used  by  any  con- 
gregation ofthis  Church  with  the  consent  of  the  clergyman 
of  any  church  or  of  such  congregation,  or  in  his  absence,  the 
church  wardens  and  vestrymen  or  trustees  of  said  congre- 
gation or  a  majority  of  them. 

Dr.  Haight  moved  to  make  it  the  order  of  the  day 
for  Friday  next ;  but  said  lie  would  withdraw  the  mo- 
tion if  the  House  were  prepared  to  consider  the  subject 
of  the  report  at  once. 

Judge  Conyngham  : — I  would  suggest  that  it  is  better 
to  leave  it  as  it  is  until  Friday.  There  may  be  some 
question  coming  that  will  lead  to  a  debate  of  this  sub- 
ject. 

On  motion  of  Rev.  Dr.  Haight,  Resolved,  that  the  re- 
port of  the  committee  be  printed  and  made  the  order  of 
the  day  for  Friday  next. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mahan — made  the  following  report : 

Tlie  Committee  on  Canons  to  whom  was  referred  the 
memorial  concerning  Canon  11,  Title  I.,  having  consid- 
ered the  same,  do  respectfully  present  the  following 
report :  The  memorial  asks  for  the  repeal  of  the  canon 
aforesaid,  on  the  ground  that  the  canon  is  differently  in- 
terpreted in  our  Church,  that  it  is  of  difficult  application 
to  lay-readers,  and  that  it  is  unnecessary  and  inexpe- 
dient. The  Committee  on  Canons  are  of  opinion  that 
some  canon  to  prevent  persons  fiom  officiating  in  this 
Church  who  are  not  ministers  or  even  members  thereof, 
is  highly  necessary  and  expedient,  and  the  necessity  of 
some  such  prohibition  being  granted  we  doubt  whether 
any  words  could  express  it  more  clearly  than  those  of 
the  [iresent  canon.  As  to  lay  readers,  they  have  never 
been  reoarded  as  officiating  in  the  sense  of  Canon  11, 
and  their  case  is  provided  for  in  another  canJh.  The 
conunittee,  therefore,  can  not  recommend  that  the  pray- 
er of  the  memorialists  be  granted. 

The  committee  further  report  that  in  their  judgment 
it  is  expedient  to  make  the  title  of  the  said  canon  con- 
tbnn  to  the  text  of  the  canon  ;  and  they  recommend  the 
adoption  by  the  House  of  the  following  resolution  : 


25 


Resolved,  the  House  of  Bishops  coneiirrinp;,  that  the  Title 
of  f'anon  11,  Title  I.,  be  aiiieiulcil  so  as  to  reiul,  "  (.)f  per- 
sons not  ministers  of  this  Clmrch  oHieiatinp;  in  any  congre- 
gation thereof" 

Rkv.  Dk.  Mahan  (continuing) — At  present,  the  title 
is  merely  an  abbreviated  title  :  "  of  persons  not  ministers 
officiating."  We  propose  merely  to  fill  it  up  according 
to  the  text  of  the  canon  itself,  thus:  "Of  persons  not  ' 
ministers  of  this  Church  officiating  in  any  congregation 
thereof." 

Rev.  Dr.  Crane,  of  Rhode  Island — moved  that  the 
report  be  made  the  order  of  the  day  for  Saturday,  and 
that  it  be  printed.  • 

The  President — suggested  that  as  there  was  no  order  ; 
of  tlie  day  for   to-morrow  it  would   be  well    to   have   it 
made  the  order  of  the  day  for  to-morrow,  and   that   the 
printing  would  be  unnecessary  since  the  proposed  alter- 
ation was  so  slight. 

Rev.  Dr.  Crane  : — It  has  been  suggested  to  me  that 
as  it  is  a  subject  kindred  to  that  of  the  order  for  Friday, 
it  should  be  made  tlie  order  of  the  day  for  Friday  im- 
mediately following  the  other.  As  to  printing  I  with- 
draw that  part  of  my  motion. 

Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin- — suggested  certain  reasons  for 
careful  deliberation  of  the  proposed  change.  The  7th 
article  of  the  constitution  provides  that  "  no  per.son  or- 
dained by  a  foreign  Bishop  shall  be  permitted  to  officiate 
as  a  minister  of  this  Church  until  he  shall  have  complied 
with  the  canon  in  that  case  made  and  provided,  and 
have  also  subscribed  to  the  aforesaid  declaration  "  with 
regard  to  the  Holy  Scriptures.  If  the  title  of  this  can- 
on is  to  be  "  Of  persons  not  ministers  of  this  Church  of- 
ficiating," it  will  apply  directly  to  ministers  of  the 
Church  of  England,  and  they  will  be  prohibiting  from 
thus  officiating  without  doing  certain  things  recjuired  by 
this  canon,  and  the  con?iilulion  would  require  them  to 
do  something  more.  It  will  be  seen  that  officiating  as 
ministers  of  the  Church  is  now  understood  by  us  to 
mean  not  as  a  transiently  officiating  minister,  but  as  settled 
ministers  ;  but  in  the  mean  time,  the  canon  using  the 
.same  forms,  is  likely  to  lead  to  a  dillerent  conclusion. 

Mh.  Wm.  Welsh,  of  Pennsylvania.  There  is  anoth- 
er reason  for  deferring  the  consideration  of  this  matter. 
It  is  this :  The  committee  have  given  an  interpretation  of 
the  canon ;  and  a  partial  interpretation  is  a  very  dan- 
gerous thing.  I  have  no  objection  to  the  canon  as  it 
stands.  The  only  thing  I  object  to  is  the  committee's 
interpretation.  They  speak  in  their  report  of  the  lay- 
reader,  referring  to  other  authority  given  to  certain  lay- 
readers.  It  is  well  known  that  tliis  Church  has  been 
using  another  cla.ss  of  readers  who  arc  not  official  lay- 
readers — those  to  whom  the  Bishop  has  no  distinct  ;iu- 
thority  to  grant  a  commission  ;  and  there  is  hardlv  a 
Bishop  of  the  Church  that  does  not  use  such.  Some  of 
tender  consciences  have  refused  to  read  the  services, 
though  directed  by  their  Bishop  and  then-  clergy.  When 
first  requested  to  do  it,  1  positively  refused,  believing 
it  to  be  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  canon.     That  can- 

4 


on  was  interpreted  to  satisfy  nie;  but  if  this  report  as 
made  by  the  committee  is  received  as  the  interpretation 
of  the  canon,  it  will  throw  difficulties  in  the  way  of  lay- 
men acting  for  their  ministers,  or  at  the  request  of  their 
Bishops  in  what  is  called  by  many  officiating.  They 
do  read  the  services  and  sermons ;  and  I  know  cases  of 
laymen  being  directed  to  do  more  than  read  sermons — 
to  exhort  and  preach.  Now,  if  that  be  right,  I  sincerely 
hope  that  the  Committee  on  Canons  will  be  willing  to 
have  it  recommitted  to  them  that  we  may  have  the  true 
interpretation  of  the  canon.  All  are  aware  that  the 
Protestant  Episcojjal  Church  is  now  waking  up  to  a  pro- 
gressive work.  But  if  this  interpretation  goes  forth,  I 
apprehend  it  will  throw  difficulties  in  our  way,  when  I 
know  it  is  not  the  intention  of  a  single  member  of  the 
committee  to  do  it.  Therefore,  I  would  be  glad  to  move, 
if  not  deemed  discourteous,  that  it  be  the  order  of  the 
day  for  Friday,  after  the  othei  canon  is  disposed  of,  and 
in  the  interval  to  be  recommitted  to  the  committee. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight  : — We  are  perfectly  content  to 
take  that  course.  I  will  only  say  that  the  committee 
have  had  it  under  consideration  several  times,  and  I  be- 
lieve the  committee  are  entirely  unanimous  in  the  pres- 
ent report.  Still  we  are  perfectly  willing  to  take  it  back 
and  think  it  over  again. 

Rev.  Dr.  Maiian.  If  it  be  recommitted  to  us,  the 
other  case  spoken  of  should  be  brought  before  us  distinct- 
ly. Besides  lay-readers,  there  are  other  kinds  of  offici- 
ating persons  spoken  of,  that  we  have  not  had  brought 
before  us  at  all. 

Mr.  William  Cornwall,  of  Kentucky.  I  would 
''ke  to  find  where  the  canon  is  defining  the  duty  of  lay- 
readers  I  never  found  any  canon  requiring  the  lay- 
reader  to  take  out  a  license,  or  defining  what  parts  of 
the  service  he  may  read.  I  think  this  ought  to  be  at- 
tended to  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Canons  with 
instructions  to  report  what  are  the  duties  of  lay-readers, 
what  pait  of  the  service  they  shall  perform,  what  part 
of  the  church  they  shall  occupy,  etc. 

Mr.  Welsh.  I  am  satisfied  with  the  canon  as  it 
is,  with  its  present  title,  if  the  committee  will  withdraw 
that  report.  But  there  is  the  report  and  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Canon,  that  the  word  officiating  means,  as  I 
understand  it  now,  representing  the  office  of  minister ; 
if  I  in  any  way  represent  the  minister  in  his  office,  then 
I  official  e 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead.  From  my  own  experience,  I 
can  say  that  the  custom  of  the  Church  for  nearly  fifty 
years  has  been  that  the  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  has  given 
a  license  to  any  layman  he  thought  a  proper  person  to 
conduct  the  services  of  the  Church  as  a  lay-reader; 
and  under  such  circumstances,  if  any  gentleman  desires 
a  special  canon  authorizing  the  Bishops  to  do  that 
which  they  have  done  from  time  immemorial,  it  can  be 
passed  ;  but  there  is  no  question  nor  difficulty  on  the  sub- 
ject. I  believe  there  arc  laymen  of  this  House  who 
went  to  their  parishes  last  Sunday  (their  Rectors  being 


26 


Cvjufined  here),  and  conducted  the  services — whether 
with  the  authority  of  the  Bishop  or  not,  I  know  not ; 
but  it  is  not  an  uncommon  thing  for  such  persons  to 
take  the  place  of  the  Rector  in  our  churches.  I  will 
giv.e  one  instance.  Some  years  ago,  being  severely  af- 
flicted by  dyspepsia  and  a  nervous  excitability  which 
would  sometimes  deprive  me  of  the  power  of  speech,  I 
was  about  coming  into  my  chancel  when  one  of  those  at- 
tacks came  upon  me.  I  sent  for  the  sexton  and  told 
him  to  go  to  the  senior  warden  and  tell  him  I  wanted 
him  to  read  the  service.  But,  by  the  time  he  got  there, 
I  was  able  to  perform  the  service  myself  I  felt  I  was 
not  violating  any  rule  by  doing  such  a  thing.  My  ex- 
cellent friend  from  Pennsylvania  [Mr.  Welsh]  may 
readily  understand  that  there  is  no  danger  of  such  lay- 
men as  he  being  interrupted  in  their  service  as  lay- 
readers. 

No  amendment  is  offered  to  the  canon  except  a  sim- 
ple amendment  in  the  title,  which  it  is  thought  would 
more  clearly  define  the  meaning  and  intent  of  the  can- 
on. I  am  myself  perfectly  satisfied  to  let  the  canon 
stand,  title  and  all,  as  it  is. 

Rev.  Dk.  Adams,  from  Wisconsin.  There  is  no  need 
at  all,  it  seems  to  me,  of  referring  back  to  the  Commit- 
tee on  Canons  their  report  and  resolution,  when  (here 
was  profound  inquiry,  and  when  they  have  fully  made 
up  their  minds,  so  that  if  it  is  referred  back  to  them  they 
can  simply  give  the  same  report,  verbatim  et  liberatim. 
I  must  say,  also,  that  I  think  making  this  the  order  of 
any  future  day  is  another  waste  of  time.  I  conceive 
that  this  question  can  very  easily,  without  injury  to  con- 
science, be  passed  upon  now.  The  verbal  amendment 
which  the  committee  has  proposed  is  a  very  plain  thing. 
The  intention  of  the  canon  is  to  prevent  people,  wheth- 
er congregations  or  clergy,  being  deceived  by  men  com- 
ing forward  and  pretending  to  be  ministers  of  the  Church 
of  En,L;land  or  of  our  own  Church  and  officiating 
thereby. 

Rev.  Dr.  Crane  . — If  T  understand  the  position  of 
this  matter,  it  is  this :  upon  the  report  of  that  com- 
mittee being  submitted,  I  have  made  a  motion  that  it  shall 
be  the  order  following  the  order  of  the  da}^  for  Friday  ; 
and  I  submit  to  the  House — Is  it  fair  to  go  into  a  discus- 
sion of  the  merits  of  the  question,  simply  when  I  have 
asked  that  it  shall  be  referred  and  made  the  order  of 
the  day  for  a  future  day  V 

Thr  President  :  There  was  another  motion  con- 
nected with  that  motion — a  motion  to  recommit;  and 
that  is  a  debatable  motion,  of  course. 

Rev.  Dr.  Adams  : — 1  would  say  that  on  the  other 
side  of  the  House,  this  question  has  already  been  dis- 
cussed as  to  its  merits;  and  it  seems  to  me  that  lam 
not  out  of  order  in  discussing  the  merits  of  this  question. 
Now,  I  will  say  with  i-egard  to  this  canon,  that  I  have 
known  such  a  circumstance  as  this  in  the  West.  I  have 
known,  by  good  evidence,  of  a  valet  of  an  English  Bishop 
— who  was  a  gentlemanly-looking   valet  as  many  valets 


are — who  stole  his  master's  sermons  and  clothes,  and 
came  into  a  Western  diocese,  and  there  he  appeared  as 
an  English  clergyman  ;  and  they  were  too  modest  or 
too  respectful,  or  felt  this  canon  oppressive,  and  there- 
fore did  not  ask  him  for  his  testimonials  ;  and  there  that 
man  officiated  for  the  major  part  of  a  year  until  his 
Bishop  incidentally  met  him  in  the  Diocese,  and  he  was 
driven  out,  after  he  had  committed  blasphemy  for  the 
course  of  a  year  by  falsely  representing  himself  as  a 
minister  of  the  Church.  I  have  known  many  instances 
of  a  similar  kind.  I  have  known  of  an  instance  of  a 
minister  of  a  church  t(^whom  a  man  represented  him- 
self as  a  clergyman  of  the  Church,  and  he  was  admitted 
to  officiate  for  that  minister  transiently  ;  and  the  minis- 
tor  was  too  modest  to  ask  him  for  his  testimonials  ;  and, 
by-and-by,  it  was  found  that  he  was  a  man  of  the  worst 
possible  character — a  mere  adventurer.  I  say  that  this 
canon  in  every  respect  is  a  good  canon,  and  properly 
understood,  there  is  no  difficulty  about  it  whatsoever, 
and  it  needs  no  alteration  in  any  way.  I  will  say  it  refers 
to  transient  ministers,  and  to  those  who  come  forward 
with  the  idea  of  becoming  permanent  ministers  of  the 
Church.  I  do  think  there  can  be  no  objection  to  it — 
that  it  is  as  plain  as  can  be ;  and  think  that  the  mass  of 
this  Convention  understand  that,  putting  in  the  words 
which  the  Committee  on  Canons  have  recommended  as 
merely  an  amendment  of  the  title  expressing  the 
distinct  and  plain  sense  of  the  canon,  it  will  be  right  and 
just,  and  according  to  the  sense  of  this  General  Conven- 
tion, and  that  we  need  not  make  any  trouble  or  waste 
any  time  which  is  so  valuable,  in  discussing  this  matter 
any  further  or  in  referring  it  back  unnecessarily  to  the 
Committee  on  Canons,  or  in  making  it  the  order  of  the 
day  for  any  future  day.  I  do  think  that  we  can  go  in  and 
with  clear  consciences  insert  the  words,  "  Of  persons  not 
ministers  of  this  Church  officiating  in  any  congregation  of 
the  same  ;"  and  in  doing  so,  I  think  that  this  Convention 
will  be  convinced — that  both  sides  will  be  satisfied — that 
we  will  not  in  any  way  break  the  interest  of  evangelical 
truth  or  apostolical  order. 

Mr.  Cornwall,  of  Kentucky  : — I  differ  from  the 
gentleman  who  has  last- spoken.  Although  I  mainly 
agree  with  him  in  his  views  of  this  subject,  1  think 
there  is  an  ambiguity  about  the  title  of  the  canon, 
and  by  referring  it  back  to  the  Committee  on  Canons, 
that  ambiguity  can  be  easily  cured :  if  they  will  make  the 
language  of  the  title  conform  to  the  language  of  the 
Ordinal,  the  whole  difficulty  will  be  avoided.  "  Of  per- 
sons who  claim  to  be  ministers,  not  Episcopally  ordain- 
ed." This  is  a  canon  with  reference  to  ministers,  and 
does  not  apply  to  any  other  class  of  persons. 

Rev.  Dr.  Norton,  of  Virginia: — I  hope  that  this 
subject  will  be  postponed.  I  had  the  great  pleasure  of 
hearing  distinctly  the  gentleman  from  Wisconsin  (Rev. 
Dr.  Adams)  ;  and  regret  very  much  that  every  member 
of  this  body  could  not  have  heard  his  remarks.  I  like- 
wise had  the  pleasure  of  hearing  the  remarks  of  the  learn- 


27 


cd  gentleman  from  Connecticut  [Rev.  Dr.  Mead],  and 
I  felt  when  he  was  speaking  that  if  we  could  all  hear 
such  words  as  that,  where  we  could  understand  one 
another,  it  might  be  possible  to  agree  upon  something 
with  regard  to  this  canon  ;  but  I  was  conscious  that  those 
sitting  in  the  rear  heard  little  or  nothing  of  what  was 
going  on.  I  feel  anxious  therefore  that  the  subject  may 
be  discussed  at  a  future  day  when  we  can  all  hear  and 
if  possible  come  to  a  common  understanding  with  regard 
to  it. 

Mh.  Cornwall  : — The  canon  alluded  to  as  defining 
the  subject  of  lay-readers,  docs  not  exist  except  as  to 
candidates  for  Holy  Orders.  As  the  subject  is  entirely 
open,  I  wish  to  offer  an  amendment  referring  back  to 
the  same  committee  to  report  that  canon. 

Dr.  Haight — suggested  that  the  proposition  should 
be  referred  separately. 

Mr. • :  I   wish   to  state   that   the  venerable 

chairman  of  this  committee  has  made  a  statement  in  re- 
gard to  the  canon,  which  I  have  no  doubt  is  entirely 
correct  in  many  dioceses,  but  it  has  never  been  the 
practice  in  the  Diocese  which  I  in  part  represent.  The 
canon  in  regard  to  lay-readers  and  the  power  of  the 
Bishops  to  license  them  has  always  here  been  construed 
with  regard  to  those  who  are  candidates  for  Holy  Orders, 
and  our  Bishops  have  never  licensed  any  laymen  who 
are  not  candidates  for  Orders,  to  read  ;  but  there  has  been 
a  custom  prevailing,  with  the  full  assent  of  the  Bishop, 
that  on  extraordinary  occasions,  when  the  minister  is 
prevented  from  performing  the  offices  of  the  sanctuary, 
any  layman  may  take  upon  himself,  as  an  occasional  thing, 
the  performance  of  Divine  service  ;  and  in  the  present 
prostrate  condition  of  our  Diocese  it  is  a  matter  almost 
essential  in  some  parts  of  the  State,  if  the  services  are 
to  be  performed  at  all,  that  our  laity  shall  be  allowed, 
from  time  to  time,  under  these  extreme  circumstances, 
to  perform  the  services  as  far  as  laymen  may.  As  this 
canon  is  now  construed,  it  would  seem  to  cut  off  entire- 
ly all  such  possibility  of  occasional  officiating  by  laymen. 
I  do  trust  that  in  the  recommitting  of  this  canon,  that 
matter  will  be  taken  into  consideration. 

The  President  then  stated  the  question  to  be  upon 
making  the  report  with  reference  to  Canon  H.,  the  or- 
der of  the  day  for  Friday  immediately  after  the  previous 
order  for  that  day — the  motion  to  i-ecommit,  meantime 
having  been  withdrawn. 

This  motion  was  then  agreed  to. 

RiiV.  Dr.  Pitkin,  of  Michigan — then  presented  the 
following  report : 

The  Committee  on  New  Dioceses  to  whom  was  referr- 
ed the  memorial  from  the  convention  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  Diocese  of  New  York,  respectful- 
ly report  that,  having  examined  the  documents  committed 
to  them  and  found  them  to  be  correct,  they  recom- 
mend the  adoption  of  the  following  preamble  and  reso- 
lution : 
WHiiUEAS,  a   request   has   bci;!  jireseuted  to  tlie  House  ol 


Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  from  the  Convention  of  the 
Diocese  of  New  York  that  a  new  Diocese  be  erected  in 
the  present  Dioeose  of  New  York,  to  consist  of  the  coun- 
ties of  Kings,  liiieens,  and  Suffolk,  connuouly  known  as 
Long  Island,  in  accordance  with  a  re.so!utionofsaid  Diocese 
of  New  York,  said  portion  of  tlie  Stale  being  part  of  the 
Diocese  of  New  York  and  of  no  otlier  Diocese;  said  act 
to  take  effect  on  tlie  IStli  day  of  N'oveiiibor,  A.  D.  1868; 
and — 
Whereas,  it  appears  l)y  official  documents  laid  before  this 
House,  that  the  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  New  York  has 
consented  to  the  erection  of  tlie  said  Diocese,  and  that  all 
the  requirements  of  tlic  Tjtli  article  of  the  Constitution  and 
i        the  Canons  are  f'ullilled,  thci-cfore  he  it — 

Resolved,  The  House  of  Bishojjs  concurring,  that  this  Con- 

J  vention  does  hereby  ratify  the  above  mentioned  action  of  the 

!   Diocese  of  New  York  in    the  erection  of  the  Diocese  afore- 

I  said,  said  action  to  take  place  on  the  1  ."ith  day  of  November 

next,  the  name  of  said  new  Diocese  to  be  determined  by  the 

primary  Convention  Ihrieof,  with  the  consent  of  the  Bishop 

of  New  York. 

Rev.  Dr.  Pitkin — moved  the  adoption  of  the  pre- 
amble  and  resolution.     Agreeil  to. 

Rev.  Dr.  Pitkin — reported,  from  the  Committee  on 
New  Dioceses,  similar  preambles  and  resolution  con- 
senting to  the  formation  of  a  new  Diocese  in  New  York, 
to  consist  of  nineteen  counties  lying  northerly  of  the 
southerly  limits  of  the  counties  of  Greene  and  Delaware ; 
the  date  of  effect  of  the  act,  1 5th  day  of  November ;  and 
name  to  be  determined  by  primary  Convention. 

Dr.  Pitkin's  motion  to  adopt  the  resolution  of  the 
report  was  agreed  to. 

On  motion  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Littlejohn,   Rev.  Wm.  C. 
j  Williams,  of  Georgia,  was  added  to  the  Domestic  and  For- 
eign Missionary  Committee. 

The  President — appointed  the  Rev.  Mr.  Lusk  of 
Indiana,  a  member  of  Committee  on  Expenses. 

The  Committee  on  Unfinished  Business  made  a  report 
of  various  matters  left  unfinished  by  the  last  Convention  ; 
which  report  was  received  without  any  action  thereon 
being  then  taken. 

Hon.  Samuel  B.  Ruggles  : — I  beg  to  inform  the 
Convention  that  his  Lordship,  the  Bishop  of  Ontario, 
is  now  present.  In  accordance  with  usage  on  similar  oc- 
casions, 1  move  that  he  be  invited  to  take  a  seat  beside 
the  President.     Adopted. 

The  President: — I  have  the  pleasure  of  introduc- 
ing to  the  Convention  [who  then  arose]  the  Right  Rev- 
erend Bishop  [Lewis]  of  Ontario. 

Mr.  William  Cornwall,  of  Kentucky — offered 
the  following  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Canons  be  retiuested  to 
report  what  parts  of  the  Morning  and  Evening  service  may 
be  read  by  Lay-readers,  and  that  the  same  committee  pro- 
pose a  canon  placing  them  under  such  discipline  as  may  be 
re(niisile  to  insure  proper  subordination. 

There  is  no  canon  on  the  subject,  except  the  canon 
applicable  to  candidates  for  Holy  Orders.  It  is  under- 
stood and  so  ])ractised  in  some  Dioceses,  that  any  com- 
municant of  the  Church  may  read  the  service.  I  have 
had  occasion  lo  do  so,  but  without  a  canon  for  it;  and  I 
have  inquired  of  the  clergy  what  was  proper  to  do,  and 
have  found   differences  of  o])iiiion      I    (ind,   also,   that 


28 


there  is  no  discipline.  There  is  no  canon  on  this  sub- 
ject ;  and  tliose  who  may  engage  in  this  worli  are  under 
no  discipline.  There  ought  to  be  a  responsibility  on 
the  part  of  those  who  act  as  lay-readers,  just  the  same 
as  there  is  on  the  part  of  the  clergy — a  responsibility  to 
some  superior  authority.  There  are  111  unlicensed  lay- 
readers  reported  in  the  Journal  of  the  Convention  ot 
1865.  By  a  little  effort  the  number  of  lay-readers 
might  exceed  the  number  of  our  clergy.  I  hope  the 
day  will  come  when  there  will  be  many  more  lay  read- 
ers working  under  the  direction  of  their  rectors,  and 
licensed  by  their  Bishops,  than  the  entire  number  of  the 
clergy,  and  that  they  will  go  out  into  all  ]/arts  of  the  land. 
I  hope  to  see  the  whole  United  States  districted  and  oc- 
cupied by  the  services  of  our  Church  ;  and  as  this  is  a 
vast  power  that  may  be  brought  into  action,  I  think  it  is 
proper  to  ofTer  this  resolution. 

Mr.  Cornwall's  motion  was  then  adopted. 

Rev.  Dr.  Littlejohn  e.xpressed  a  wish  that  the  Con- 
vention should  not  leave  the  chapel  without  some  ex- 
pression of  their  appreciation  of  the  zealous  and  un- 
wearied labor  for  their  convenience  and  comfort  that 
had  been  devoted  to  the  sessions  of  this  convention  by 
the  chairman  of  the  Committee  of  Arrangements,  Rev. 
Dr.  Haight. 

Mr.  Welsh  of  Pennsylvania  offisred  a  resolution 
which,  somewhat  modified  by  Rev.  Ur.  Peterkin  of  Vir- 
ginia, was  as  follows : 

Resolved,  That  the  members  of  the  House  of  Clerical  and 
Lay  Deputies,  in  leaving  Trinity  Chapel  for  the  greater  con- 
venience of  its  future  sessions,  de.sire  to  express  and  report 
their  hearty  thanks  to  the  Vestry  of  this  Church,  the  Com- 
mittee of  Arrangements,  iuul  especially  to  tlie  Rev.  Dr. 
Haight,  the  ehairuuui,  for  tiie  kind  and  liberal  etforts  made 
by  one  and  all  of  tlicm  to  promote  the  comfort  ot  this  Con- 
vention. 

This  resolution  was  unanimously  adopted. 

Inquiries  and  suggestions  were  made  as  to  the  place 
of  holding  the  morning  services,  whether  the  House  of 
Bishops  would  unite  with  the  deputies  in  those  services, 
or  conduct  them  separately  in  Trinity  Chapel ;  where- 
upon— 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead  said — It  is  the  general  practice  of 
this  House  to  make  its  own  arrangements  for  Morning 
Prayer.  Those  of  the  Bishops  who  may  attend  with  us, 
afterwards  return  to  their  own  House  and  say  their 
prayers  there.  Our  prayers  are  not  satisfactory  to  them. 
In  fact,  it  has  been  the  custom  of  the  Hr.use  of  Deputies 
to  fix  the  time  for  Morning  Prayers  and  send  a  notice 
to  the  Bishops,  that  they  might,  if  they  pleased,  attend. 
I  think  it  would  be  far  the  best  way  to  let  them  have 
their  Morning  Prayers  and  for  us  to  take  care  of  our 
Morning  Prayers  for  ourselves. 

Rev.  Dr.  Stubbs — It  is  an  unseemly  thing  for  one 
House  to  have  prayers  in  one  place  and  the  other  House 
to  have  prayers  in  another  place.  I  think  the  most 
Christian  way  would  be  to  have  a  Committee  of  Con- 
ference. 

The  President — A  Committee  of  Conference,  tech- 


nically so-called,'  can  only  be  appointed  upon  some  dis- 
agreement between  the  Houses. 

Rev.  Dr.  Cooke  offered  the  following  resolution  : 

Resolved,  That,  ivith  tlie  approval  of  the  House  of  Bish- 
ops, the  morning  service  of  tlie  Cluu-ch,  as  jirescribed  by  the 
Rules  of  (Jrdcr  of  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies, 
be  held  in  tlie  Cliurch  of  the  Transfiguration. 

Rev.  Dr.  Adams  offered  the  following  resolution  : 

Resolved,  That  the  Morning  Prayers  of  this  House  be 
held  in  Trinity  Chapel,  and  the  House  of  Bishops  be  re- 
quested to  attend. 

During  the  discussion  of  the  subject  of  the  place  of 
holding  the  morning  services — 

A  message  from  the  House  of  Bishops  announced  that 
they  had  adopted  a  preamble  and  resolution,  ratifying 
the  erection  of  a  new  Diocese  out  of  the  present  Dio- 
cese of  Western  New  York. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead  inquired  if  any  documents  concern- 
ing the  proposed  new  Diocese  had  been  sent  to  the 
Committee  on  Canons. 

The  Secretary — No,  sir. 

A  Deputy  from  Western  New  York — moved  con- 
currence in  the  resolution  of  ratification  adopted  by  the 
House  of  Bishops. 

Rev.  Dr.  Sheltox,  of  the  Diocese  of  Western  New 
York — supported  the  motion,  and  claimed  that  the  ac- 
tion of  the  Plouse  of  Bishops  was  regular. 

Mr.  justified  the  action  of  the  House  of  Bish- 
ops in  originating  this  action  by  the  precedent  of  1838, 
when  the  Diocese  of  New  York  was  divided.  In  defer- 
ence to  that  action  the  deputation  from  Western  New 
York  had  thought  it  proper  to  have  the  same  course 
taken  nqjv. 

Hon.  S.  B.  RuGGLKs — As  one  of  the  Committee  on 
New  Dioceses,  I  feel  bound  to  say  that  this  is  not  a  mere 
matter  of  form — the  birth  of  a  Diocese.  The  bringing 
into  this  great  Church  a  Diocese  to  last  for  all  time  to 
come,  is  not  a  mere  matter  of  form.  The  constitution 
of  this  Church  requires  certain  prerequisites  for  the  ad- 
mission of  a  new  Diocese.  Therefore,  this  body  has  a 
Committee  on  New  Dioceses,  whose  duty  it  is  honestly, 
vigilantly,  and  carefully,  to  e.xamine  whether  these  pre- 
requisites exist.  We  have  no  evidence  here  that  this 
examination  has  been  made  in  the  other  House.  We 
must  discharge  our  constitutional  duties  by  ascertaining 
whether  the  constitutional  prerequisites  have  been  com- 
plied witli.  I  can  pledge  myself  for  the  committee  that 
we  will  take  immediate  action  upon  the  matter,  if  the 
documents  aie  referred  to  the  committee.  Our  hearts 
are  all  with  Western  New  York ;  there  has  been  no  de- 
lay ;  but  I  earnestly  hope  that  the  safeguards  thrown 
around  the  subject  by  the  constitution  may  not  be  omit- 
ted— that  we  may  not  be  drawn  into  a  mischievous  prec- 
edent. 

During  the  recess  which  occurred  at  this  point,  the 
deputies  proceeded  to  the  Church  of  the  Transfiguration. 

The  I'ueside.S'T — after  calling   the  House  to  order. 


stated  that  the  business  before  the  house  was  the  resolu- 
tion of  Dr.  Cooke. 

Dr.  Clahk — We  have  anotlier  resolution  to  succeed 
this,  of  an  entirely  opposite  character.  To  my  mind 
both  of  them  arc  unfortunate.  I  see  no  reason  why  we 
need  pass  upon  any  resolution  of  the  kind  whatever. 
There  will  be  morning  service  here  and  also  at  Trinity 
Chapel ;  and  why  need  we  pass  either  of  these  resolu- 
tions whicli  are  invidious.  I  move  the  resolutions  be 
laid  on  the  table. 

Dr.  Clark's  motion  was  carried. 

Mr.  C.  C.  Pahsons  of  Kansas — moved  that  the  mes- 
sage No.  7  from  the  House  of  Bishops  relative  to  the 
erection  of  a  new  Diocese  in  Western  New  York,  be 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  New  Dioceses. 

Mr.  Hexky  Mf.igs,  Jr.,  from  New  Jersey — With 
reference  to  the  suggested  amendment  of  Mr.  Parsons's 
motion,  that  the  House  of  Bishops  be  requested  to  fur- 
nish the  documents  upon  which  they  had  acted,  said : 
If  we  have  not  sent  the  documents  upon  which  we  have 
acted,  when  we  sent  messages  to  them,  it  would  hardly 
be  respectful  to  ask  them  to  send  theirs  to  us. 

Rev.  Dr.  Pitkin — It  is  the  duty  of  the  Diocese  to 
send  the  documents  both  to  the  House  of  Bishop.s  and 
to  the  House  of  Deputies.  ■  The  House  of  Bishops  could 
not  act  without  the  proper  papers ;  and  this  House  could 
not  act  unless  they  have  the  proper  documents.  This 
House  has  not  yet  had  the  facts  in  regard  to  tlie  aj)pli- 
cation  from  Western  New  York. 

A  Deputy  from  Western  New  York — having  stated 
that  the  deputation  would  present  the  proper  documents 
in  the  matter  of  their  application,  the  proposed  amend- 
ment to  Mr.  Parsons's  motion  was  withdrawn.   " 

Mr.  Parsons's  motion  was  then  adopted. 

Presidknt — 1  have  called  for  resolutions  and  other 
business,  all  the  regular  business  of  the  day  having  been 
disposed  of;  but  none  have  been  oU'ered.  I  recall  a  re- 
port from  the  Committee  on  Canons  dealing  very  sum- 
maril}-  with  a  memorial  from  the  Diocese  of  Georgia. 
The  report,  which  was  against  the  memorial,  was  receiv- 
ed, and  the  committee  was  discharged.  1  submit  the 
question  whether  tliat  can  now  be  brought  up  for  the 
consideration  of  the  House.  Gentlemen  learned  in  the 
law  will  be  able  to  tell  us  whether  the  discharge  of  the 
committee  has  entirely  taken  the  subject  from  before  the 
House.  If  not,  and  it  is  the  pleasure  of  the  House  to 
take  up  that  subject,  it  might  be  done  while  we  are  wait- 
ing for  something  else  to  do.  The  Secretary  then  read 
from  the  journal  of  the  fourth  day's  proceedings  the  re- 
port from  the  Committee  on  Canons,  submitted  by  Rev. 
Dr.  llaight;  from  which  it  appeared  that  the  memorial 
of  the  Diocese  of  Georgia  asking  that  the  name  Convo- 
cation be  substituted  for  Diocesan  Convention,  Synod  for 
Provincial  Council,  and  General  Council  for  General 
Convention,  was  reported  against  by  the  connnitlee,  who 
asked  to  be  disch.irged  from  tlie  I'urtlu'r  consideralion  of 
the  subject;  and  tliey  were  accordingly  discharged. 


Rev.  Wm.  H.  Clarke,  of  Georgia. — I  had  the  honor 
of  presenting  that  memoiial.  The  object  we  aimed  at 
pi'incipally  was  to  get  rid  of  the  word  convention,  and 
substitute  for  it  the  word  council.  When  this  report  came 
in  from  the  Committee  on  Canons  we  took  no  notice  of  it, 
because  we  supposed  the  subject  of  changing  tlie  name 
would  come  up  in  another  form;  and  we  did  not  think 
it  necessary  to  embarrass  the  proceedings  of  the  conven- 
tion by  introducing  a  nefr  resolution.  I  think  the  sub- 
ject of  making  this  change  is  now  before  the  Committee 
on  Canons.  If  it  be  not  before  them,  I  should  be  glad, 
if  it  be  in  oidor,  to  make  the  motion  that  it  be  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Canons  to  consider  the  expediency 
of  changing  the  name  convention  to  council  wherever  it 
occurs  in  the  Constitution  and  Canons.  According  to 
the  generally  accepted  authority  of  Webster,  the  two 
words  Convention  and  Council,  taken  in  their  original, 
are  synonyms,  one  denoting  the  idea  of  coming  together 
or  being  convened,  and  the  other  denoting  the  idea  of 
coming  together  with  some  little  excitement.  .  Men 
come  together  voluntarily  in  a  convention.  Convention 
is  said  to  be  derived  from  ronvcnio  and  Council  from 
concilium.  The  word  council  descn-ibing  a  body  like 
our  own,  has  nothing  to  do  with  counsel  meaning  advice 
As  the  word  convention  has  been  degraded  in  these  lat- 
ter times,  it  might  be  well  to  have  a  word  not  so  much 
degraded  at  least. 

Judge  Otis. — The  question  was  asked  whether  the 
action  of  the  Committee  on  Canons  disposed  of  the  sub- 
ject in  discussion.  The  memorial  from  Georgia  asked 
for  three  names;  Convocation  for  Diocesan  Convention, 
Synod  for  Provincial  Council,  and  tieneral  Council  for 
the  General  Convention.  This  was  acted  upon,  and  the 
report  was  made.  After  that  a  memorial  from  the  Diocese 
of  Illinois  was  presented  and  referred  to  the  committee, 
simply  asking  for  the  change  of  the  name  convention  to 
council  wherever  it  occurs.  That  1  sujjpose  is  now  on 
the  list  of  subjects  before  the  Committee  on  Canons,  to 
be  acted  upon,  and  will  be  reached  in  its  order. 

Hon  S.  B.  Rdggles,  of  New  York. — I  think  that  in 
the  consideration  of  this  subject  the  Convention  has  lost 
sight  of  one  important  circumstance,  namely,  that  our 
House  of  Bishops,  in  prosecuting  and  carrying  on  their 
business,  frequently  adjourn  as  a  House  of  Bishops,  ami 
gointo  "Council,"  and  sit  in  council.  I  can  readily 
imagine  that  sitting  in  council  they  sit  under  their  in- 
herent authority  as  Bishops,  while  in  General  Conven- 
tion they  sit  ujider  the  constitutional  authority  confer- 
red upon  them.  But,  at  any  rate,  they  use  the  woid 
council  to  describe  the  part  of  their  proceedings  which  are 
printed  in  the  journal;  and  we  may  make  confusion  by 
adopting  the  name  Council  instead  of  Convention. 
'  Tni;  President  —  suggcstwl  that  the  (|uestion  was 
whetlier  this  subject  could  be  brought  up  at  all.  Of 
course  the  house  could  not  go  into  the  merits  of  that 
question  unless  it  should  be  brought  up  in  some  form  or 
other. 


30 


Mr.  Geokge  a.  Gordon,  of  Alabama. — I  am  satis- 
fied from  having- liad  .«ome  little  experience  in  legislative 
matters  that  ft  is  entirely  legitimate  for  the  house  to 
take  up  the  subject  ol'  the  memorial  from  Georgia,  if 
they  choose  to  do  so.  The  reports  of  the  committees,  ac- 
cording to  Jefferson's  Manual,  are  always  in  order.  The 
mere  fact  of  the  introduction  of  a  report  does  not  neces- 
sarily imply  the  taking  up  of  a  report.  And  if  the 
Committee  on  Canons  or  a '  committee  on  any  other 
subject  in  this  house  rises  at  this  moment  and  makes  a 
report,  it  would  always  be  in  order  and  right  to  receive 
it.  It  would  then  require  a  substantive,  independent 
vote  of  the  house  first  to  take  it  up ;  because  otherwise 
it  will  simply  lie  upon  the  table  to  take  its  place  on  the 
calendar  or  when  ever  reached  in  regular  order.  After 
having  been  taken  up,  the  house  would  proceed  to  con- 
sider, and  either  adopt  or  reject,  the  report  of  the  com- 
mittee. If  I  understand  the  condition  of  the  memorial 
from  the  State  of  Georgia,  it  was  referred  to  the  appro- 
priate committee  ;  that  committee  made  a  recommenda- 
tion; and  in  addition  to  the  usual  recommendation,  name- 
ly, that  it  should  not  pass,  they  also  asked  that  they  should 
be  discharged  from  the  consideration  of  the  subject. 
The  House  acted  upon  nothing  but  the  latter  branch. 
They  simply  discharged  the  committee  from  the  further 
consideration  of  the  subject.  The  memorial  therefore 
came  back  to  the  House,  and  is  now  in  possession  of  it, 
to  be  acted  upon  now  or  at  any  other  time. 

The  President — Then  if  a  motion  is  made  to  take 
it  up,  it  will  be  before  the  House,  if  that  be  the  law  of 
the  case  as  I  presume  it  is. 

A  Di'PUTY — suggested  that  the  discussion  of  the  ques- 
tion in  any  wise  was  premature  as  he  understood  that 
the  Provincial  System,  which  properly  involves  this 
question,  would  be  brought  before  the  House  during  the 
present  session.  He  moved  that  the  subject  be  post- 
poned. 

The  President — said  the  motion  was  not  in  order 
because  the  subject  was  not  before  the  House. 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Clarke,  of  the  deputation  from  Geor- 
gia— moved  that  the  memorial  from  Georgia  be  taken 
up  ;  but  upon  the  announcement  that  the  Committee  on 
Canons  were  about  to  make  a  report,  withdrew  his 
motion. 

Rev.  Dr.  Howe,  of  Pennsylvania— submitted  the  fol- 
lowing report : 

The  Committee  on  Canons  to  whom  were  referred 
certain  memorials  from  the  Dioceses  of  New  York  and 
Maryland  concerning  the  establishment  of  Federate 
Conventions  or  Councils,  beg  leave  respectfully  to 
i-eport  that  after  careful  delibei'alion  they  are  prepared 
to  recommend  the  adoption  of  the  following  resolution  ; 

Jiemlved,  The  House  of  bishops  concurring,  that  the  fol- 
lowing be  iidopted  iLi  Guion ,  Title ,  au- 
thorizing the  foriii:itioii  of  Fetleratc  Councils  or  ('ouncilsof 
Dioceses  within  anv  Statu,  to  wit :  It  is  liereby  declared 
lawful  for  tlie  Dioceses  now  existing  or  hereafter  to  exist 
within  tlie  limits  of  any  State  or  Commonwealtli,  to  establish 
for  themselves  a  Federate  Coiivciuion  or  Couiuil  ri-|iie»i.-nt- 


ing  such  Dioceses,  which  may  deliberate  and  decide  upon 
the  common  interests  of  tlie  Church  withiu  the  hmits  afore- 
said ;  but  l)efore  any  dclcniiinate  action  of  said  Convention 
or  Council  shall  be  liad,  tlie  power  jiropcsed  to  be  exercised 
thereby  shall  be  submitted  to  the  General  Convention  for 
its  approval. 

Rev.  Dr.  Howe,  continuing:- — I  will  take  occasion, 
Mr.  President,  with  your  leave,  to  say  that  the  substance 
of  this  canon  was  adopted  by  the  last  General  Con- 
vention, or  rather  by  the  Lower  House  in  the  last  Gen- 
eral Convention,  and  sent  up  to  the  House  of  Bishops 
for  concurrence.  It  was  returned  to  us  with  the  message 
that  it  was  too  late  in  the  session  to  take  into  considera- 
tion so  grave  a  matter,  and  thereby  the  legislation 
failed ;  but  it  passed  in  the  Lower  House  by  a  large 
ma,jority.  'J'he  canon  was  recommended,  in  the 
first  instance  to  the  attention  of  the  fieneral  Convention 
by  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese  of  Pennsylvania,  then 
about  to  be  divided.  The  same  canon — in  the  form 
into  which  the  Lower  House  of  the  last  General  Con- 
vention moulded  it,  with  some  modifications  from  that 
whicli  had  been  submitted  by  the  convention  of  Pennsyl- 
vania— was  recommended  again  to  the  attention  of  the 
General  Convention,  by  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese  of 
New  York,  at  its  late  session,  with  only  an  amendment 
in  the  final  clause,  and  with  the  proviso  that  no  deter- 
minate action  shall  take  place  by  such  Federate  Council 
or  Convention  until  the  powers  which  it  proposes  to  ex- 
ercise are  submitted  to  the  (jeneral  Convention  for  its 
concurrence.  With  that  exception  it  is  the  same  as  was 
postjjoned  by  the  last  Hoiise  of  Deputies.  It  may  be 
said  further  that  it  is  believed  that  no  Diocese  now  knows 
precisely  what  powers  it  would  like  to  intrust  to  such  a 
Federate  Council  or  Convention — That  any  step  which 
may  be  taken  in  that  direction  must  be  for  the  time 
merely  experimental  or.  tentative  and  that  this  General 
Convention  therefore  are  just  as  unprepared  to  prescribe 
any  fashion  after  which  such  Federate  Council  should  be 
moulded  as  any  one  of  these  dioceses  requesting  such 
powers  are  themSclves  unprepared  now  to  express  them.  . 
However,  in  any  organization  which  they  may  institute 
in  these  several  states  or  dioceses  experimentally,  an  in- 
terchange of  views  wdl  bring  out  to  their  own  appre- 
hension precisely  what  they  want;  and  at  the  next 
General  Convention  it  is  beheved  that  the  General  Con- 
vention will  be  ready  to  act  definitively  on  this  matter. 

Ret.  Db.  Haight  made  a  motion — suljseqnenlly 
withdrawn — to  make  this  report  the  order  of  the  day 
for  Monday. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight  inquired  whether  the  vote  by 
which  certain  subjects  were  assigned  to  Friday  could 
not  be  reconsidered. 

The  Presioent  said  he  had  suggested  that  before  the 
recess. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight — Yes — but  the  House  could  not 
hear  then.  (Laughter.)  I  move  to  reconsider  the  mo- 
tion by  which  the  Canon  on  Clerical  Intrusion  (Canon 
12)  be  made  the  order  of  the  day  for  Friday,  and  that 
it  be  made  the  order  of  the  day  for  to-morrow. 


81 


The  question  upon  reconsidering  the  assignment  to 
Friday  of  Canon  12  was  reconsidered;  and  then — 

On  motion  of  ])r.  Haiglit,  its  consideration  was  talcen 
up ;  when — 

The  Secretary  read  the  report ;  when — 

Rev.  Dk.  Haight  said — The  committee  have  had  this 
canon  under  consideration,  and  referred  it  to  a  sub-com- 
mittee, wlio  presented  the  following,  which  will  be  read 
from  the  desk,  as  an  amendment  to  the  canon.  It 
is  designed  to  meet  one  class  of  difficulties  which  has 
been  alleged  to  grow  out  of  the  present  canon.  The 
committee  do  not  pretend  to  say,  by  theii-  report,  that 
it  is  the  onh'  amendment  which  they  have  to  suggest. 
There  are  many  and  grave  difflculties  connected  with 
the  subject;  but  the  attention  of  tlie  committee  was 
called  to  the  fact  that  this  canon  was  supposed  by 
many  persons,  and  some  of  them  persons  of  eminence, 
to  interfere  with  the  right  of  the  individual  rector  in 
a  city  or  town  where  there  were  two  or  more  parishes 
to  invite  into  his  own  pulpit  any  l>rother  whom  he 
might  desire  to  have  officiate  for  him,  without  the  con- 
sent of  the  other  clergyman  or  clergymen.  I  have  nev- 
er had  the  slightest  idea  that  this  canon  had  that  appli- 
cation. Still  it  is  supposed  to  have  that  application  ; 
and  I  have  heard  it  argued  by  some  eminent  men  that 
the  canon  necessarily  meant  this,  and  it  ought  to  be 
obeyed.  In  order  to  meet  this  difficulty  and  relieve 
the  minds  oftho.se  who  suppose  by  the  language  of  the 
canon  they  are  under  some  disability,  the  committee 
have  considered,  framed,  and  submitted  the  amendment 
to  the  canon  now  before  this  House. 

Mr.  N.  H.  Massie — ^suggesting  that  the  proper  con- 
sideration of  the  report  and  amendment  required  printed 
copies  of  the  same,  and  (this  meeting  the  views  of  many 
others),  moved  that  the  further  consideration  be  post- 
poned until  the  amendment  could  be  printed  and  dis- 
tributed. , 
This  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  Committee  on  the  Treasurer's  report,  reported 
that  it  was  correct  and  properly  vouched. 

Rev.  Du.  Norton,  of  Virginia — desiring  that  the 
change  of  the  name  Convention  to  Council  sliould  be 
consideredindependently  of  other  questions  which  might 
prejudice  it,  offered  the  following : 

Resolved,  The  Iloufc  of  Bishops  conciuriiig,  that  the 
Con.^titiitioii  of  this  Cluirch  hi>  amended  by  the  substitution 
of  the  word  Council  for  the  v.ord  Convention,  nlicrevor  the 
latter  word  occurs  in  the  said  constiMition. 

After  various  inquiries  as  to  order  of  business  and  as 
to  effect  of  discharging  the  Committee  of  Canons  from 
the  further  consideration  of  tlie  memorial  from  fieorgia 
in  reference  to  change  of  three  names  apjilying  to  ditf'er- 
ent  Church  assemblages — 

Rev.  Dh.  Norton,  of  Virginia,  said  his  proposition 
was  not  the  one  contained  in  the  memorial  from  Geor- 
gia, but  an  independent  resolution. 

Rkv.  I)i{.  .\d.vms: — Mr.  President,  I  was  very  glail, 
indeed,  to  hear  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  bring  for- 


ward this  question,  because  it  was  one  part  of  the  great 
question  to  be  settled  in  these  few  next  conven- 
tions, or  else  we  must  give  up  tc  others  the  po- 
sition which  we  ought  to  have  in  these  United  Stales. 
The  matter,  sir,  is  the  matter  of  organization. — 
We  are  the  descenilants  of  the  Anglican  Church. 
We  have — and  we  count  it  a  great  thing — the  Apos- 
tolical succession,  the  Prayer-Book  ;  and  we  have  a 
full  belief  in  the  Church  everywhere. 

The  question  of  organization  comes  up,  and  that  is  a 
complicated  matter;  and  it  is  one  which  we  must  dis- 
cuss. This  matter  of  Federate  Conventions  is  part  of 
it.  This  matter  of  names  of  the  General  Convention, 
Diocesan  Convention,  and  State  C"onvention  is  part  of 
it.  The  decision  of  all  these  questions  comes  before 
us  ;  and  it  is  well  for  us,  instead  of  complicating  the 
matter  by  having  all  these  come  together,  to  take,  as 
the  gentleman  from  Virginia  lias  done,  one  of  the  most 
important  points  at  a  time,  in  this  great  idea.  He  has, 
as  ]  understood,  brought  forward  the  change  of  title  of 
General  Convention  to  General  Council.  Now,  Mr. 
President,  I  conceive  that  that  can  be  clearlj'  and  dis- 
tinctly brought  forward  as  a  separate  part  of  the  great 
idea  that  we  can  decide  upon,  and  that  we  can  settle  it; 
and  by  so  doing  we  shall  reach  one  portion  of  this  great 
question  of  organization  ;  and  we  shall  reach  the  vote  of 
the  Convention,  distinctly  and  plainly,  without  any  com- 
plication of  any  other  matter,  whatever;  and  then,  hav- 
ing done  this,  we  shall  be  able  to  proceed  to  other  mat- 
ters. I  should  like  that  the  Secretary  would  read  the 
resolution  which  was  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Virginia,  in  order  that  I  may  distinctly  imderstand  the 
verbal  complexion  of  it.  I  would  ask  the  gentleman 
from  Virginia  if  he  is  willing  to  accept  the  change  of  a 
single  phrase  in  that  resolution  of  his.  The  word 
Council,  I  conceive,  is  an  admirable  one,  but  I  think 
that  if  we  are  to  proceed  to  this  question,  it  will  be  bet- 
ter to  take  the  matter  of  General  Convention  first. 
And  I  would  ask  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  if  he 
will  accept  the  substitution  for  the  word  Council  of  the 
phrase  National  Council  or  Great  National  Council,  so 
that  we  may  come  at  this  question  of  the  name  of  the 
General  Convention. 

Rkv.  Dh.  Norton — I  should  like  very  much  to 
gratify  the  gentleman;  but,  if  he  will  observe,  it  would 
defeat  one  of  the  main  objects  of  the  resolution,  which 
is,  to  bring  into  harmony  our  diocesan  councils  with 
the  General  Convention.  While  those  who  call  their 
diocesan  conventions  councils,  feel  that  they  have  a 
right  to  do  so,  they  all  feel  it  inconvenient.  It  was 
with  the  especial  intention  of  remedying  that  difficulty 
that  I  offered  this  resolution  now. 

IIev.  Dk.   .\p.\ms — The   gentleman,  of  couise,  has  a 

right  to  his  opinion  ;  and  I  also  have  my  rights  on  the 

lloor  of  this  House.     Therefore,  instead  of  asking  him 

to  accept  the  change,  I  will  put  my  opinion  and  my  ac- 

j     tion  as  an  amendment    to    his.     I  will,  tlierelbic,  move 


32 


an   amendment  to  his   resolution  in  the  shape  of  an 

amendment  to  the  Constitution  ;  which  will,  I  believe, 

bring  it  more  distinctly  before  this  House  : 

"  An  Amendment  to  the  Constitution." 

Resolved,  The  House  of  Bishops  ("oncurring,  that  in  every 
place  where  the  words  General  Convention  occur  in  the 
Constitution  and  Canons  of  this  Church,  the  words  Great 
National  Council  be  substituted. 

In  order  to  test  the  tone  and  temper  of  this  House,  I 
would  ask  them  not  to  send  this  in  to  the  Committee 
on  Canons.  (Laughter.)  You  said,  Mr.  President,  that 
this  is  a  safe  Committee,  and  so  it  is.  This  resolution 
I  brought  forward  in  1865,  and  it  was  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Canons,  as  will  be  seen  on  p.  131  of  the 
Journal.  "The  Committee  on  Canons,  to  whom  was 
referred  the  resolution" — identical  with  this — "re- 
spectfully reported  that  in  their  opinion  the  change  is 
inexpedient,  and  ask  to  be  dismissed  from  the  further 
consideration  of  the  subject."  I  therefore  hope  that  in 
this  House,  whatever  disposition  may  be  made  of  this 
motion,  it  will  not  be  referred  to  that  Committee  on 
Canons.  (Laughter.)  I  have  the  highest  respect  for 
them  all ;  and  they  are  some  of  my  best  friends  ;  but  I 
have  an  idea  that  if  they  should  sit  upon  this  resolution . 
it  would  end  in  smothering  it. 

A  Depttv — Will  the  gentleman  drop  the  word 
Great  ? 

Rev.  Dh.  Adams — I  will  do  it.  Now,  sir,  1  will  ask 
of  the  Secretary  of  this  House,  as  a  matter  that  I  think 
will  be  rather  important  in  the  discussion  of  this  sub- 
ject, whether  the  Diocese  of  Nebraska  was  admitted  with 
the  term  Council  or  not. 

The  Secretarv — I  understood  it  was. 

Rev.  Dr.  Adams — I  understand,  then,  that  in  the 
General  Convention  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  United  States  we  already  have  gone  so  far  upon 
this  question  as  to  authorize  in  the  case  of  the  Diocese 
of  Nebraska,  and,  of  course,  in  the  case  of  all  dioceses, 
the  term  council  as  a  name  of  their  convention — their 
annual  convention.  I  will  suggest  that  that  is  upon 
the  record.  The  gentleman  from  Virginia  will  permit 
me  to  say  that  the  thing  is  settled,  so  far  as  he  is  con- 
cerned. If  the  united  action  of  both  H(nises  of  this 
General  Convention  admits  anew  diocese  with  the  term 
council,  after  the  fullest  debate,  I  should  think,  sir, 
that  the  Diocese  of  Virginia,  and  every  other  diocese 
that  chooses  to  change  the  name,  has,  by  the  permis- 
sion of  the  General  Convention  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Chinxh,  a  canonical  right  to  change  the  title  of 
Convention  to  Council.  And  I  should  conceive  that 
members  of  this  Church  who  have  hitherto  complained 
of  the  discord  of  having  the  word  Council  along  with 
Convention,  would  .see  that  the  argimient  goes  the  other 
way.  The  General  Convention  has  authorized  the  term 
council  with  regard  to  dioceses ;  and  therefore  it  will 
be  its  most  natural  action  to  pass  an  amendment — that 
which  is  proiioscd  here — in  order  to  bring  its  nomencla- 
ture, in  reference  to  the  General  Convention,  into  per- 


fect accord  with  its  nomenclature  as  concerns  individu- 
al Dioceses.  I  suppose  that  there  are  in  this  Church  20 
different  Dioceses  which,  in  the  course  of  the  next  three 
years,  will,  in  accordance  with  the  permission  given  us 
here,  change  their  name  from  Convention  of  the  Diocese 
of  so  and  so  to  Council  of  the  Diocese. 

Rev  Dr.  Haight  asked  if  it  was  competent  to  amend 
the  Constitution  by  joint  resolution. 

Rev.  Dk.  Adams. — I  propose  an  amendment  in  due 
form  to  the  Constitution.  It  will  be  seen  that  this  is  a 
matter  of  organization,  and  contemplates  three  things. 
It,  in  the  first  place,  contemplates  the  taking  by  this 
present  General  Convention — which  is  really  and  truly 
a  National  Council  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  United  States — unaltered  in  all  its  powers,  and 
with  every  right  unchanged,  of  its  proper  title  of  the 
National  Council  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in 
the  United  States  of  America.  In  the  second  place,  it 
will  be  seen  that  this  matter  of  Federate  Council  will 
come  up  very  naturally  to  receive  its  settlement.  In 
the  third  place,  the  Diocesan  Council  will  come  up  also. 
It  will  be  seen  that  these  are  three  distinct  subjects — 
distinct  portions  of  one  great  system  of  organization  of 
the  Church  in  the  United  States.  It  will  be  seen  also, 
I  trust,  by  the  present  National  Council  that  the  matter 
I  propose  is  perfectly  distinct,  and  can  now  be  acted  on; 
it  is  merely  a  change  of  names;  makes  no  constitutional 
changes;  and  at  the  same  time  sends  us  on  our  way  in 
reference  to  the  organization  of  the  Church,  so  that  it 
may  be  enabled  to  perform  its  proper  duty.  Upon  the 
question  of  the  admission  of  Nebraska,  I  presented  some 
reasons  for  the  change  from  the  name  convention,  and 
said  something  as  to  the  danger  and  disadvantages  of 
using  the  word  convention.  I  need  not  repeat  them. 
I  will  only  say  that  council  is  an  ecclesiastical  term. 
Convention  is  not  merely  a  political  term;  it  is  a  term 
for  any  chance  meeting  of  ajiy  persons  whatsoever,  that 
is.  :i  convention  of  any  and  every  thing.  So  far  as  my 
experience  goes,  I  know  of  no  good  Christian  in  the 
West  that  has  ever  spoken  in  any  assemblage  of  the 
Church,  especially  in  the  West,  that  is  not  desirous  that 
we  should  have  this  change. 

Rev.  Dr.  Ad.^ms  continued  his  argument  at  consid- 
erabli'  length,  cs|iccially  urging  the  importance  of  the 
change  according  to  that  spirit  of  progress  by  which 
the  Church  should  achieve  the  position  of  the  National 
Church — a  position  '^hich  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
was  energetically  striving  for. 

IMii.  Meigs  argued  against  the  inference  that  the  ad- 
mission of  the  Diocese  of  Nebraska  committed  the  Con- 
vention to  the  name  council.  The  argument  was 
brought  forward  distinctly  by  the  committee  that  by  the 
adoption  of  the  Constitution  of  the  General  Convention 
the  Diocese  pledged  itself  to  conformity  therewith  as  to 
constitutional  name  and  every  thing  else. 

Mr.  George  A.  Gordon  spoke  in  favor  of  the  reso- 
lution of  Dr.  Norton,  and  against  that  of  Dr.  Adams. 


33 


Judge  Conyngham  said  that  if  the  question  were  a 
new  one,  there  might  not  be  an)-  espceial  ehoice  between 
the  name  Convention  and  Couneil;  but  the  name  Con- 
vention was  a  time-honored  and  hallowed  one.  That 
the  dioceses,  in  his  opinion,  could  not  be  required  in 
matters  of  mere  nomenclature  to  conform  to  that  adopted 
by  the  Convention,  and  hence  uniformity  could  not  re- 
sult from  the  proposed  change. 

Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin,  while  claiming  the  absolute  right 
of  the  General  Convention  to  give  a  nomenclature  to 
the  Dioceses,  thought  it  inexpedient — at  least,  the  power 
should  be  exercised  with  caution.  He  denied  the  right- 
fulness of  any  inference  from  the  admission  of  the  Dio- 
cese of  Nebraska  that  the  Convention  had  recognized 
the  name  council,  and  analyzed  the  vote  upon  the  pro- 
posed proviso,  and  showed  that  it  showed  no  majority 
in  favor  of  the  name. 

Judge  Battlk  argued  that  the  admission  of  the  Diocese 
of  J^ebraska  was  upon  the  idea  not  of  approval  or  sanc- 
tion of  the  name  council,  but  upon  the  ground  on  the 
part  of  many  members  that  either  the  Constitution  re- 
quired no  change  of  name  from  council  to  convention, 
and  therefore  the  name  was  not  material,  or  that  it  did 
require  such  change,  and  that  the  adoption  of  the  Con- 
stitution by  the  Diocese  either  of  itself  worked  the 
change  or  required  it  of  the  Diocese. 

Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin  continuing,  said  that  according 
to  the  statement  of  Dr.  Adams  we  stand  in  the  year  of 
Grace,  1868,  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  the 
United  States,  debating  its  Prayer-Book  of  1  787,  and  as 
not  organized  yet.  It  seemed  a  strange  view  that  we 
are  just  entering  upon  the  question  of  organization. 

The  Convention  then  adjourned  to  to-morrow  at  10 
o'clock. 

SEVENTH  day's  PROCEEDINGS. 

Wednesday,  Oct.  14,  1868. 

The  convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

Morning  Prayer  was  said  by  Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin 
of  Pennsylvania,  and  Rev.  Horace  Stringfellow,  Jr., 
of  Indiana.  The  Benediction  was  pronounced  by  Bish- 
op Talbot,  of  Indiana. 

The  .Journal  of  yesterday's  proceedings  was  read  and 
approvcil. 

Rev.  Dr.  Adams  accepted  the  suggestion  of  the  Presi- 
dent as  to  the  parliamentary  form  of  his  last  resolution 
of  amendment  yesterday. 

Rev.  S.\MUEL  CoOKK,  D.  D.,  of  the  Diocese  of  New 
York — Presented  the  following  memorial : 

lo  the  Hotiae  of  Jiixhofx  and  t/ie  MuUM  of  Clerical  and  La;/ 
Depiitien  ill  the    General    Vonrention   of   the   Protestant 
EpiKC(tpal  Churrlt  in  the  United  States  of  America: 
The  uiulersignoil,  Ijcin-;  nionihers  of  tlic  Protestant  Epis- 
cop.ll  Church,  uiiil  Wardens  ;ind  Vestrvnicn  of  the  Church 
of  the   Holy  Trinity  in  the  City  of  .Nch   York,  resiicct fully 
invito  the  attention    of  the  (icncnil  Convention   to    the   an- 
nexed  report  of  the   trial  of  the   Kev.  Stephen  H.  Tvn<;, 
Junior,  Hector  of  .said  Church,  as  e.\liiliiting  a  recent  inter- 
pretation   of    certain   eanons,    the    previcnis    understaniting 

5 


thereof,  and  the  long-continued,  widely  extended,  and  un 
disputed  usape  in  conformity  with  that  luiderstanding;  and 
respectfully  submit  for  their  consideration  the  propriety  of 
pronouncing  some  definition,  or  making  some  amendment, 
which  may  clear  the  law  of  dispute,  and  prcnnote  the  ex- 
tension of  the  Church  and  the  advancement  of  religion. 
Very  respectfully, 

Robert  Dumont,  )  Wardens 

S.  Henry  Hurd,   \  "'^rlens. 

E.  R.  Tremain, 

J.  Nelson  Tappan, 

Chas.  K.  Randall, 

William  L.  Andrews,    }■  Vestrymen. 

Jonathan  Edgar, 

William  B.  Northrup, 

R.  M.  Bro.ndige, 
New  York,  October,  18i;8.  4 

"  The  annexed  report "  of  the  trial  is  a  volume  of  310 
octavo  pages. 

On  motion  of  Rev.  Dr.  Cooke,  the  memorial  and  the 
printed  document  [the  report  of  the  trial]  were  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Canons. 

Rev.  Samuel  Benedict,  from  Georgia—  Ofiered  the 
following  resolution :  ' 

Resolved,  That  it  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Can- 
ons to  consider  the  expediency  of  proposing  an  amendment 
to  the  constitution,  or  a  declaratory  canon,  setting  forth  the 
principles  embodied  in  the  following  statement,  or  such  or 
so  much  of  tliera,  as  they  may  deem  of  suHicient  clearness 
ami  importance,  and  in  such  form  and  mode  as  they  may 
select : 

This  Church  in  her  legislation  recognizes  these  princi- 
ples :  that  the  Episcopate  is  derived  from  the  Apostles  of 
our  Lord,  and  perpetuates  their  authority  to  confer  holy 
orders  and  to  rule  in  the  Church  of  Christ ;  that  this  au- 
thority, in  matters  ecclesiastical,  is  absolute,  save  when 
limited  by  the  Prayer  Bool;  or  Canons  and  Constitution  of 
the  Church  ;  that  when  the  scope  and  meaning  of  this  limi- 
tation is  questioned,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  inferior  to  defer 
to  Apostolical  authority  until  the  question  of  liinitatioi,!  is 
settled  by  the  proper  tribunal. 

Rev.  Samuel  Benedict  (continuing) — I  will  simply 
say,  in  moving  the  reference  to  the  Committee  on  Can- 
ons, by  way  of  explanation,  if  necessary,  that  to  many 
of  this  Church,  clergy  and  laity,  it  is  very  apparent  we 
are  going  to  be  too  democratic.  The  analogy  is  fre- 
quently drawn  between  the  constitution  and  government 
of  the  United  States  and  the  constitution  of  the  Church 
in  the  United  States.  While  it  is  good  for  illustration 
as  a  partial  argument,  it  is  faulty  in  this  important  par- 
ticular, that  while  in  the  State  the  authority  springs  up 
from  the  people,  in  the  Church  authority  comes  down 
from  Christ.  We  are  probably  in  the  course  of  a  little 
while  to  have  a  debate  upon  matters  of  the  Ritual.  I 
submit  that  there  are  many  in  this  Church  who  feel  that 
no  canons  can  produce  uniformity.  And  even  if  it  were 
possible  to  have  a  rigid  uniformity,  it  is  not  expedient. 
What  we  need  is  not  so  much  uniformity  as  harmony, 
and  that,  in  the  field  of  the  Church  as  in  other  fields,  is 
subserved  by  the  obedience  of  each  one  in  his  place  to 
proper  authority.  I  do  not  propose  to  enter  into  this 
discussion  at  the  present  time,  but  simply  move  the  ref- 
erence of  this  resolution  to  the  Committee  on  Canons. 

A  Deputy — Suggested  that  it  should  be  referred  to 


34 


the  Committee  on  the  Prayer  Book  as  involving  a  ques- 
tion of  doctrine. 

Another  Deputy — Moved  the  amendment  that  the 
Committee  on  Canons,  to  whom  it  is  referred,  make  as 
early  a  report  as  possible. 

Mr.  B Repeated  his  suggestion  that  the  refer- 
ence should  be  to  the  Committee  on  the  Prayer  Book, 
because,  when  there  was  an  attempt  to  touch  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Church,  it  should  be  done  with  the  utmost 
caution  and  care,  and  should  not  be  done  by  the  wrong 
authority  ;  that  if  the  object  were  to  explain  the  Prayer 
Book  or  to  enlarge  it  or  to  express  its  views  more  clearly 
and  succinctly,  it  should  go  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Prayer  Book. 

Rev.  Dr.  Stubbs,  New  Jersey — This  matter  has  been 
already  in  part  acted  upon  ;  and  the  first  canon  of  the 
Church  refers  to  it.  I  should  like  very  much  to  see  the 
substance  of  the  first  canon  embodied  in  these  resolu- 
tions, and  the  first  canon  repealed.  I  do  not  see  myself 
that  it  is  necessary  in  the  canons  to  assert  the  principles 
which  are  universally  recognized.  The  first  canon  as- 
serts the  doctrine  referred  to.  But  that  canon  is  ob- 
jectionable on  the  ground  that  no  one  in  the  Church 
denies  the  truth  here  asserted.  There  are  some  princi- 
ples involved  in  those  resolutions  not  so  universally  ac- 
knowledged; and  if  they  were  enlarged  somewhat,  I 
should  be  glad  to  see  them  considered  in  connection 
with  this  first  canon.  I  beg  leave  to  make  the  sugges- 
tion that  the  first  canon  be  embodied  in  these  resolutions 
and  that  the  canon  be  repealed. 

Mr. .     That  is  merely  a  declaratory  canon.     It 

appears  to  me  to  open  a  wide  discussion — to  present 
principles  upon  which  there  may  be  the  widest  differ- 
ences, and  principles  which  do  touch  our  standard  of 
faith,  and  I  do  not  think  we  ought  to  impose  that  sub- 
ject upon  the  Committee  on  Canons.  There  is  a  special 
committee  for  it  if  we  do  mean  to  touch  the  Prayer 
Book.  Let  us  understand  what  we  are  about.  I  stand 
by  the  Prayer  Book  as  handed  down  to  us  by  the  fathers 
of  the  Church ;  and  I  go  against  every  proposition  to 
touch  or  change  it.  1  trust  that  this  Convention  will  un- 
derstand that  it  is  the  charter  of  our  religious  rights,  and 
maintain  it  to  the  last.  This  is  no  time  to  tamper  with 
it.  If  it  is  to  be  tampered  with,  by  either  one  side  or 
the  other,  let  the  Church  understand  distinctly  and 
clearly  what  we  are  about.  Let  it  be  touched  by  no 
side  issue.  Let  it  go  to  that  committee  which  the 
Church  has  appointed  to  prepare  such  action.  I  press 
my  motion,  and  if  the  gentlemen  will  not  accept  my 
suggestion,  I  move  it  as  an  amendment  that  this  resolu- 
tion be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Prayer  Book, 
as  it  is  intended  to  change  the  standard  of  the  Church. 

Judge  Battle — Thought  it  should  be  referred  to 
the  Committee  on  the  Prayer  Book ;  the  Committee  on 
Canons  already  have  business  before  them  to  occupy  them 
one  fortnight ;  and  it  is  utterly  impossible  that  they 
should  engage  in  these   extensive   inquiries.     Let   the 


gentlemen  who  wish  these  things  considered,  bring  some 
definite  matter  before  the  Convention.  Let  this  be  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  the  Prayer  Book,  and  let 
them  frame  an  article  and  let  that  be  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Canons  ;  and  then  as  one  of  the  members 
of  tliat  committee,  I  shall  be  prepared  to  act  upon  it. 

Rev.  Mr.  Benedict  accepted  the  amendment  to  re- 
fer to  the  Committee  on  the  Prayer  Book. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight — Said  the  Committee  on  Canons 
had  so  much  business  that  he  should  be  sorry  to  have 
this  matter  referred  to  them. 

Dr.  LiTTLEjOHN — I  trust  that  in  the  motion  which  I 
am  about  to  make  touching  this  resolution,  it  will  not  be 
considered  by  the  mover  that  I  am  guilty  of  any  inci- 
vility towards  him  in  any  shape,  or  that  I  wish  to  stand 
in  the  way  of  formal  and  emphatic  assertion  of  perhaps 
most  of  the  points  which  he  has  made  in  that  resolution. 
But  in  this  resolution  he  calls  upon  this  body  to  set 
forth,  in  the  form  of  a  declaratory  canon,  principles 
which,  according  to  the  phraseology  of  the  resolution, 
it  is  declared  are  already  recognized  in  the  legislation  of 
this  Church.  There  is  not  a  principle  embodied  in  that 
resolution  which  is  not  already  incorporated  in  the  leg- 
islation of  our  Church.  There  is  not  a  principle  afi'ect- 
ing  doctrine  or  discipline  that  is  not  admitted  by  every 
well-educated  member  of  this  Church ;  and  the  only 
practical  point  that  I  can  see  in  the  resolution  is  simply 
a  formal  e.\hortation  to  be  given  by  this  body,  based 
upon  a  report  of  the  Committee  on  Canons,  if  you 
please, — a  formal  and  earnest  exhortation  to  every  pres- 
byter and  deacon  to  obey  his  Bishop  in  matters  doubtful. 
That  is  all  provided  for  in  our  ordination  vows.  I  can 
see,  therefore,  nothing  to  be  gained  by  the  reference  of 
this  resolution  to  either  of  the  committees  named.  I  see 
no  practical  result  to  arise  from  the  reference  of  this 
resolution.  I  shall,  therefore,  move,  with  all  due  respect, 
that  it  be  laid  on  the  table. 

Dr.  Littlejohn's  motion  was  seconded  and  adopted. 

Rev.  Mr.  Clements,  of  Ohio,  presented  a  memorial 
from  members  of  the  Church  of  St.  .John's,  Passaic, 
N.  J.,  similar  to  those  offered  by  Judge  Conyngham, 
and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Canons.  This  memo- 
rial was  so  referred. 

Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin  off'ered  a  resolution  to  the  effect 
that  it  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Canons  to  inquire 
whether  a  change  be  not  desirable  in  Article  4  of  the 
Constitution,  by  adding  some  phrase  equivalent  to  ''or 
by  the  Bishop  himself  of  some  other  Diocese."  Not 
acted  on. 

Rev.  Dr.  Adams  obtained  the  floor,  and  moved  that 
the  order  of  the  day  be  postponed. 

The  President. — The  order  of  the  day  has  arrived. 

Rkv.  Dr.  Adams. — I  moved  that  it  be  postponed.  I 
made  the  motion  before  its  announcement.  I  moved 
that  it  be  deferred,  that  the  debate  may  be  carried  on 
upon  the  question  of  changing  the  title  of  the  General 


^?< 


Convention  into  National  Council,  Triennial  Council,  or 
Great  Council. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight. — The  order  of  the  day  is  Canon 
12.  I  am  perfectly  content  that  the  order  of  the  day 
should  be  postponed,  because  the  printed  copies  are  not 
here.  But  when  they  arrive  I  shall  move  to  postpone 
this  matter  and  take  up  the  order  of  the  day.  Unless 
we  keep  to  the  order  of  the  day  we  may  as  well  go  home ; 
we  shall  never  get  through  our  work. 

The  vote  being  then  taken  upon  Dr.  Adams's  motion 
to  postpone  the  order  of  the  day,  and  to  take  up  the  un- 
finished business  of  yesterday  in  regard  to  nomenclature 
of  Church  Cnnventions,  the  motiop  was  agreed  to. 

Rev.  Dr.  Norton,  of  Virginia. — Has  the  gentleman 
from  Pennsylvania  [Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin]  the  floor  ?  I 
feel  anxious  that  we  should  obtain  a  vote  upon  this  ques- 
tion this  morning.  Wu  seemed  to  be  almost  ready  for  it 
yesterday  evening  when  we  adjourned. 

Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin  having  the  floor,  allowed  Rev. 
Dr.  Pitkin  to  submit  a  re[iort  from  the  Committee  on 
New  Dioceses,  ratifying  the  formation  of  a  new  Diocese 
within  the  present  limits  of  the  Diocese  of  Western  New 
York.  He  said  (omitting  remarks  founded  ou  a  misap- 
prehension, and  withdrawn),  the  fact  remains  that  the 
papers  were  imperfect,  but  have  been  perfected.  They 
have  been  carefully  examined  by  the  committee,  and  they 
are  satisfied  that  all  the  requirements  of  the  Constitution 
have  been  complied  with.  These  papers  arc  in  possession 
of  the  House,  and  can  be  read  if  the  reading  shall  be 
called  for.  I  move  the  adoption  of  the  preamble  and 
resolution. 

On  motion,  and  by  consent  of  the  chairman  of  the 
committee,  the  report  was  re-committed  for  the  rectifying 
of  certain  informalities. 

Message  No.  8  from  the  House  of  Bisho[)S  was  re- 
ceived, announcing  their  adoption  of  the  following  reso- 
lution : 

Re.wleed,  The  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Di>putios  con- 
curring, that  Section  2  of  Canon  Id,  Title  I.,  be  so  amended 
as  to  read  as  follows,  namely,  in  place  of  the  words  "at 
least  three  years,"  the  words  "af  least  one  year." 

On  motion,  this  message  was  referred  to  the  Commit- 
tee on  Canons. 

Rev.  Dr.  Goonwi.s  : — I  should  be  sorry  to  liave  the  feel- 
ing prevail  that  I  am  delaying  the  business  of  the  Conveu- 
tiou  in  uiidertukiug  to  address  them.  I  will  address  niy.'^elf 
to  tile  work  which  1  left  yesterday  with,  however,  one  per- 
sonal explanation  first  of  all.  When,  on  a  former  occasion, 
I  was  cut  off,  after  five  minutes'  speaking,  by  a  recess,  I  com- 
pleted my  speech  after  the  recess,  and  after  that  rose  to  !isk 
ou  behalf  of  the  Diocese  of  Peuusylvania,  that  the  vote 
should  be  taken  by  Dioceses  and  orders,  and  it  was  with  great 
difficulty  that  I  could  get  a  hearing,  because  it  was  alleged 
I  had  spoken  twice  on  the  same  question.  I  beg  now  to 
inform  the  President  and  the  Hoii.se  that  I  had  not  spoken 
twice  on  the  same  question.  It  is  unfortunate  for  me  that 
I  am  so  often  cut  off,  and  now  liere  is  the  second  time  that 
I  have  been  interrupted  in  the  midst  of  a  speech  by  an  ad- 
journment, anil  everybody  thinks    that    f    have    made  two 


speeches.  (Laughter.)  I  beg  the  House  to  observe  th.it 
this  is  not  two  speeches.  I  hardly  know  where  I  left  the 
subject  yesterday,  Init  I  will  begin  as  well  as  I  can  with  the 
statement  that  seems  important  in  regard  to  the  manner  or 
circumstances  in  which  the  terms  Convention  and  General 
Convention  came  to  be  adopted  in  our  Church.  It  seems 
to  me  to  be  a  strong  point  to  consider. 

When  after  the  American  Revolution,  our  Church  came 
to  organize  herself — and  I  think  she  did  organize  herself — 
in  this  country,  she  began  in  the  different  States.  The 
Church  undertook  to  organize  herself  in  those  States. 
There  were  no  Bishojis  at  tlic  first,  and,  of  course,  they  were 
oliliged  to  be  content  with  a  very  imperfect  organization  ; 
and  no  better  term  suggested  itself  to  the  minds  of  tlie 
Fathers  of  our  Church  than  to  call  their  meetings  Conven- 
tions ;  and  they  were  called  Conventions  of  such  and  such 
States.  Then,  when  they  came  to  frame  their  Constitution, 
I  believe  there  were  three  Bishops,  and  that  they  constitut- 
ed a  House  of  Bishops  there,  or  immediately  thereupon. 
They  continued  the  same  term  Convention  for  the  legisla- 
tive bodies  of  the  Church  in  the  different  Dioce.ses  or  States; 
and  they  Introduced  the  term  General  Convention  for  the 
legislative  body  of  the  Church  in  the  United  States.  And 
whv?  Xot  simply  because  they  had  been  thus  obliged  to 
begin,  but  becau.se  they  thought  there  were  good  reasons 
for  so  continuing.  For  example,  if  you  will  look  to  the  rat- 
ification of  the  Book  ^f  Common  Prayer,  you  will  find  that 
it  is  ratified  by  the  Bishops,  Clergy,  and  Laity  of  tli£  Prot- 
estant Episcopal  Church  hi  the  United  States  in  General 
Convention. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  I  have  not  the  slightest  doubt  that 
the  term  was  thoughtfully,  deliberately,  and  purposely  cho- 
sen. I  hold  myself  hable  to  correction.  I  am  not  as  learned 
in  ecclesiastical  history  as  some  other  gentlemen  in  this 
Convention  doubtless  are ;  but  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge 
there  was  no  Council  held  in  the  Church  or  any  branch  of 
the  Church  Catholic  after  the  so-called  Council  at  Jerusalem,  • 

where  the  laity  were  represented  as  constituting  a  part  of 
such  Council.     In  the  so-called  Council  at  Jerusalem,  I  say,  ^ 

because  it  does  not  seem  to  be  called  so  in  the  text.  Now 
the  Councils  in  the  Church  after  this  date  were  not  Councils 
of  Bishops,  Elders,  and  Laity.  To  the  best  of  my  knowl- 
edge, there  was  no  such  Council.  I  am  not  sure  about  that, 
but  certainly  I  am  sure  of  the  general  fact  that  the  Councils 
were  Councils  of  Bishops.  I  say,  then,  our  Church  deliber- 
ately, inteutionaily  and  with  the  full  knowledge  of  the  case, 
as  I  apprehend,  intending  to  introduce  Lay-representation 
in  the  legislative  body  of  the  Church  in  the  United  States, 
intending  that  it  should  consist  of  Bishops,  Clergy  and  Laity, 
did  introduce  the  term  General  Convention— designated  it 
so  that  it  should  be  the  Bishops,  Clergy  and  Laity  of  the  Prot- 
estant Episcopal  Church  in  General  Convention.  Such  1 
understand  to  be  the  origin  of  the  term  and  thffjustification 
of  it.  This  is  the  mode  of  organiziug  our  Church,  as  adopt- 
ed by  the  Fathers  of  our  Church.  It  seems  to  be  impHed 
in  the  remarks  that  have  been  made  ou  the  other  side,  as  I 
said  yesterday,  that  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  in  its 
principles  of  organization,  has  hitherto  been  a  failure.  At 
all  events,  it  is  argued  that  somuhow  or  other  it  will  follow 
in  connection  with  adopting  this  change,  I  do  not  pretend 
to  understand  how,  but  will  try  to  guess,  using  my  YnnUro 


36 


Jirivilege;  but  it  is  somehow  or  other  supposed  that,  by 
aiiopting  this  oliauge,  tlie  Church  will  begin  to  grow  and 
grow  until  it  is  the  Church  of  the  United  States,  acknowl- 
edged as  sucli  by  all  the  people  of  the  United  States,  one 
beautiful  Cliurch  of  all  the  United  States,  with  uo  dissenters, 
no  Romanists  ;  and  not  only  so,  but  that  this  Church,  with 
the  Anglican  Church,  is  to  be  the  Church  of  the  whole  world, 
and  so  to  be  acknowledged ;  and  all  this  to  follow  from 
changing  General  Convention  to  Council. 

Now,  I  think  it  will  take  a  little  time  if  I  am  to  answer 
such  an  argument  as  this.  If  the  argument  is  in  order  and 
fairly  to  be  brought  before  this  Convention,  and  expected  to 
influence  the  minds  of  the  members  of  this  Convention,  if  I 
think  it  is  futile  and  false,  it  ought  to  be  in  order  to  answer 
it;  yet,  I  think  it  is  going  pretty  wide  from  the  question.  I 
have  felt  the  desire  as  strongly  as  any  desire  I  cherish,  that 
such  a  glorious  result  as  has  been  pictured  for  the  Church 
might  come  about  somehow  or  other,  some  day  in  the  world 
— that  this  Church  of  ours  should  grow  and  grow  until  it 
should  be  the  Church  of  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  United 
States  of  America  ;  that  it  should  grow  until,  witli  all  the 
Churches  in  its  communion,  it  should  become  the  great  Cath- 
olic Church  of  the  whole  world.  I  pray  God  that  such  a 
consummation  may  one  day  be  reached.  It  is  the  desire  of 
my  hea"  as  strongly,  I  think,  as  it  can  be  the  desire  of  the 
gentleman  (Rev.  Dr.  Adams)  who  made  the  argument  re- 
ferred to.  But  while  I  cherish  such  a  desire,  it  is  the  desire 
that  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  the  United  States 
of  America  should  thus  become  the  Church  of  the  whole 
world.  I  believe  it  is  the  Catholic  Church — most  assuredly 
a  branch  of  the  Catholic  Church,  No  man  will  pretend  that 
it  is  now  the  whole  of  the  Catholic  Church,  that  is,  including 
all  the  members  of  Christ's  Church  within  its  immediate 
communion.  I  believe  it  is  the  Catholic  Church  in  this 
sense  :  that  it  is  a  true  branch  of  Christ's  Church  Catholic 
here  on  the  earth.  But  what  I  believe  to  be  a  true  branch 
of  the  Church  is  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  the 
United  States  of  America.  Now,  in  order  that  that  glori- 
ous consunmiation  should  be  reached  to  which  the  gentle- 
man referred,  this  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  is  to  be  Or- 
ganized, not  even  ce-organized.  But  if  it  is  assumed  that  it 
is  no  Church,  in  other  words,  it  is  uo  Church-organization, 
and  is  not  a  Church,  and  must  be  organized  inorder  to  ac- 
complish such  an  end,  I  confess  that  I  start  back.  It  is  the 
Chtircli  of  my  fathers  ;  it  is  the  Church,  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church,  of  seventy-nine  years,  that  I  am  looking  at, 
organized  and  in  full  action  these  seventy-nine  years. 
Must  we,  Mr.  President,  sit  here  on  the  question  of  a  post- 
mortem examination  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church, 
and  consider  whether  we  can  resurrect  it,  or  organize  it, 
and  make  a  Church  for  this  country  ?  I  would  like  to  have 
it  distinctly  stated  to  this  House,  if  the  gentleman  would  be 
kind  enough  to  do  so,  whether,  with  all  his  heart,  he  does 
adopt  the  Protestant  Epi.seopal  Church  of  the  United  States 
of  America  as  the  church  of  his  affections,  or  whether  it  is 
the  American  Catholic  church,  or  the  Reformed  Catholic 
Church  of  America.  I  hear  only  such  phrases :  I  would 
like  to  know  before  I  am  called  upon  to  act  upon  a  ques- 
tion of  this  kind  which  is  to  reach  forward  into  this  grand 
result,  whither  we  are  tending — what  this  means.  Is  it  that 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  is  to  become  all  this  ?  or 


are  we  first  to  organize  a  Church  in  the  United  States  that 
is  thus  to  go  forward  ? 

Now,  Mr.  President,  I  understand  that  there  is  a  differ- 
ence between  the  Church  and  "  this  Church."  In  all  my 
reading  of  our  Constitution  and  canons  I  find  a  distinct 
implication,  from  beginning  to  end,  that  there  is  no  claim 
on  our  part  to  be  the  Church.  The  claim  is  to  be  "  This 
Church" ;  and,  of  course  this  Church  is  the  Church  for  us. 
It  is  "  This  Church"  in  the  Constitution  and  in  the  Canons. 
I  need  not  go  over  it:  it  is  over  and  over  again  "This 
Church,"  that  is,  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America.  If  you  will  have  the  patience  to 
allow  me  to  refer  to  some  of  these  cases,  if  any  evidence  is 
needed,  I  iind  that  in  the  preface  to  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer  set  forth  by  the  Fathers  oUhis  Church,  that  they  de- 
clare that  "  when  in  the  course  of  Divine  Providence  these 
American  States  became  independent,  the  different  denomi- 
nations of  Christians  in  these  States  were  left  at  full  and 
equal  liberty  to  model  and  organize  their  respective  churches 
in  such  a  manner  as  they  may  judge  most  convenient  for 
"  their  future  prosperity."  "  The  attention  of  this  Church ;" 
they  claim  an  equal  liberty  with  all  the  other  religious  de- 
nominations in  the  United  States  to  model  their  Church 
as  they  should  see  fit.  And  so  in  the  Constitution,  it  is 
over  and  over  again  "  this  Church.''^  I  think  time  would 
fail  to  cite  all  the  cases  in  the  canons  in  which  "  this  Church^' 
is  thus  referred  to.  But  there  are  two  or  three  cases  that 
are  exceedingly  deserving  of  consideration  as  it  seems  to  me. 
In  canon  second,  Title  one,  8th,  9th  and  loth  paragraphs, 
we  have  such  statements  as  these  :  "  When  a  person  who, 
not  having  had  Episcopal  ordination,  has  been  acknowl- 
edged as  an  ordained  minister  or  licentiate  in  any  other  de- 
nomination of  Christians,  shall  desire  to  be  ordained  in  this 
Church  he  shall"  do  so  and  so.  And  then  in  the  ninth : 
"  When  a  person,  if  not  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  who 
has  been  acknowledged  an  '  ordained  minister  in  any  other 
denomination  of  Christians  shall '  apply  to  become  a  candi- 
date for  orders  in  "this  Church."  So  in  the  next  section, 
and  in  Canon  5,  6  and  7.  In  Canon  5  :  "  candidates  who, 
not  having  Episcopal  ordination,  have  been  acknowledged 
or  ordained  as  licensed  ministers  in  any  other  denomination 
of  Christians  may,"  etc.  So  in  the  7th  :  "Ordained  or  li- 
censed ministers  in  any  other  denonmiation  of  Christians," 
and  the  same  phrase  occurs  in  Cauon  7th,  tith  section.  Now, 
what  is  the  meaning  of  "  in  any  other  denomination  of 
Christians"  if  this  is  not  a  denomination  of  Christians  ? 

Mr.  President,  here  are  our  Canons  not  made  by  the  first 
Fathers  of  the  Church,  but  we  have  the  testimony  of  the 
Fathers  of  the  Church  in  the  very  preface  of  the  Prayer- 
Book ;  and  now  we  have  the  Canons  as  set  forth  in  1859  I 
believe ;  and  they  gravely  talk  to  us  of  "other  denomina- 
tions of  Christians  and  the  ministers  of  other  denominations 
seeking  orders  in  "this  Cliurch."  I  ask  again  what  can  be 
the  meaning  of  "  oMer  christian  denominations'''  \in\ess  this 
Churcli  is  a  denomination  of  christians  ? — Now  as  to  the 
proposition  that  this  should  be  a  National  Council.  I  have 
no  objections  to  the  idea  of  a  National  Council  at  all,  the 
idea  being  I  suppose  that  this  is  a  National  Council  of  the 
Church.  Yes,  and  more  than  that,  the  National  Church  of 
the  United  States — the  only  Church — the  only  Church  in 
the  United  States.     That  is  to  be  the  claim.     And  upon  that 


87 


claim,  if  I  understand  it,  and  through  that  sort  of  claim,  we 
are  to  get,  by  the  change  of  Convention  to  Council,  the 
beautiful  results,  the  glorious  ends,  referred  to.  They  are 
to  be  reached  through  tliu  claim  that  this  Church  is  to  be 
the  only  Church  of  Christ  in  the  United  States.  I  do  not 
ask  whether  the  Fathers  of  this  Church  would  recognize 
such  a  Church  as  the  Church  which  they  intended  to  or- 
ganize here.  I  have  no  objection  to  the  idea  in  some  points, 
however ;  and  would  only  say  that  if  it  should  come  to  pass 
in  the  good  Providence  of  God,  and  in  His  infinite  mercy 
upon  us  who  do  not  deserve  so  great  mercy,  that  this 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  should  become  the  only  Ch()i'ch 
of  Christ  in  the  United  States,  God  be  thanked  and  praised  : 
but  the  claim  to  be  such  is  another  question.  I  ask  as  to 
the  reaching  of  these  results  by  such  a  claim — Has  the 
Church  of  England  which  makes  that  claim  and  has  made 
the  claim  that  it  is  the  National  and  only  Church  of  England 
authorized  by  law  and  recognized  in  the  Canons  of  the 
Church — has  she,  under  such  a  claim,  grown  against  dissent 
and  against  JRomauism  according  to  the  idea  which  the 
gentleman  will  please  us  with  ?  We  say  that  we  are  to  rout 
out  Romanism  and  all  dissent  by  such  a  claim  as  this,  if  I 
heard  the  case  aright.  But  I  think  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  has  grown  more  rapidly  in  thirty  years  past  in 
England  than  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  has  grown  in  this 
country  out  of  the  native  population  of  this  country.  I  be- 
lieve the  growth  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  out  of  the 
native  population  has  been  very  small  within  the  last  thirty 
or  forty  years.  It  seems  to  me  that  this  cannot  bear  out 
the  idea  that  barely  making  such  claims  is  seeking  to  ac- 
complish such  glorious  results.  I  believe  that  hmnility  is 
as  likely  to  lead  to  exaltation  of  the  Church  as  its  own  ex- 
altation of  itself  would  be.  We  are  told  that  we  must  run 
a  race  with  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  or  that  they  will 
run  ahead  of  us.  If  I  were  to  be  allowed  to  speak  for  my- 
self, I  should  say  that  I  do  not  desire  to  run  a  race  with  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church  on  any  such  course.  I  am  ready 
to  run  a  race  with  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  with  all  my 
might  and  main,  but  as  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of 
the  United  States  of  America ;  but  as  to  undertaking  to  run 
a  race  with  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  all  her  claims 
and  usages  so  as  to  stand  side  by  side  with  her  and  to  be 
able  to  tell  the  people  that  we  have  the  same  sort  of  priest- 
hood and  the  same  .sort  of  sacrifices  and  altar  ;  that  we  have 
all  the  claims  that  this  Roman  Catholic  Church  has  and  ape 
all  her  forms  and  ways — say  to  run  a  race  with  her  for  the 
Churchship  of  this  country — I  have  no  notion  of  it. — As  to 
establishing  schools,  cannot  this  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  establish  schools  as  well  under  the  name  of  Protes- 
tant Episcopal  Church  as  under  the  name  of  Reformed  Catho- 
lic Church '?  I  say  I  cannot  see  how  these  glorious  results  are 
dependent  upon  this  beginning.  It  is  a  beginning,  and  the 
deputy  from  Connecticut  has  uttered  extremely  important 
words  to  us  as  lo  this  subject  when  he  says  obsta  principiis 
[resist  the  beginnings].  This  is  a  beginning ;  it  is  an 
entering  wedge,  we  are  honestly  told.  I  have  two  or  three 
other  things  to  say.  There  are  grave  legal  difficulties  con- 
nected with  this  change  as  regards  the  donations  and  lega- 
cies that  have  been  left  to  this  Church,  or,  in  Dioceses,  left 
to  the  control  of  the  conventions  thereof.  We  cannot 
change  our  legal  designation  without  legal  authority,  or  if 


we  do  so  we  may  lose.  I  leave  this  part  of  the  subject  to  be 
dealt  with  by  the  Deputy  from  Illinois,  who  I  believe  is  ful- 
ly prepared  to  state  the  case  to  us  as  a  lawyer.  It  is  an 
important  thing  to  be  considered  before  we  go  forward  in 
this  way. — Xow,  as  to  the  objection  to  the  term  National 
which  was  made  by  the  honorable  Deputy  from  Alabanm,  I 
believe  I  have  only  to  observe  to  him,  while  I  fully  recipro- 
cate those  feelings  of  gratification  which  he  has  expi-essed  at 
being  here  to  deliberate  with  us,  that  he  still  holds  to  the 
title  General  Council  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of 
the  United  States  of  America.  If  we  could  have  the  Church 
without  regard  to  National  boundaries,  a  Church  pervaded 
by  the  love  of  Christ  spreading  over  the  world  without  re- 
gard to  National  boundaries,  1  would  most  hear-tily  rejoice 
in  having  such  a  result,  if  it  might  be.  But  I  think  it  is  an 
impossibility,  taking  man  as  he  is  and  human  natur-e  as  it  is. 
Humanity  may  be  so  elevated  by  the  power  of  christiair 
truth  one  of  these  days  that  all  wars  and  dissensions  shall 
cease  in  the  world ;  but  we  must  not  anticipate  that  time 
and  make  arrangements  as  if  it  had  already  taken  place. 
Now,  observe  it  would  still  be  the  General  Council  of  the 
United  States  of  America ;  it  is  still  National. 

Now  it  seems  to  me  that  great  and  inconsider-ate  haste  is 
exhibited  in  bringing  these  propositions  before  the  Conveir- 
tion,  and  particularly  the  amendment.  That  is  nothing  bin 
my  private  opinion  publicly  expressed.  It  may  be  unwise  in 
me  to  point  out  what  are  the  future  difficulties  to  which  I 
may  refer ;  because  if  I  wanted  to  leave  this  matter  in  such 
shape  as  that  at  the  next  General  Convention  it  could  not 
be  carried  through,  I  would  leave  it  exactly  as  these  gentle 
men  have  put  it;  and  I  would  have  this  Convention  pass 
these  things  as  they  are,  and  I  should  be  perfectly  sure  that 
the  whole  thing  would  be  completely  finished  at  the  next 
session  of  the  Convention,  finished,  I  mean,  without  anv- 
thing  being  done.  For  what  is  the  proposition?  The 
proposition  on  the  amendment  is  that  the  phrase  General 
Convention  wherever  it  occurs  in  the  Constitution  shall  be 
changed  to  National  Council.  Look  at  Article  first :  "  A 
General  Convention  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church" 
and  so  on.  Now,  in  the  6th  line  it  is,  "and  in  such  place  as 
shall  be  determined  by  the  Convention."  Now  there  is  no 
proposition  to  alter  that.  The  proposition  made  by  the 
Deputy  from  Illinois  (and  of  course  he  cannot  change,  be- 
cause he  has  pledged  him.self  that  he  will  stand  by  every 
word  like  the  laws  of  the  Medes  and  the  Persians,  and  will 
not  change  a  word  of  his  speech,  and  still  less  the  text  of  his 
amendment),  his  amendment  would  not  require  the  word 
convention  to  be  changed  because  it  is  not  General  Conven 
tion.  And  so  in  three  or  four  lines  below,  four  or  five  times 
in  that  line,  convention  occurs;  and  it  is  only  proposed  that 
where  General  Convention  occurs  it  should  be  changed  to 
National  Council.  That  certainly  will  not  cari'V  this  Conven- 
tion in  so  important  and  grave  a  matter  as  changing  the  Con 
stitution,  w'liei'e  the  word  convention  stands  alone.  And  I 
call  attention  to  this  matter  ;  in  the  second  Article  it  is  said 
that  "the  concurrence  of  both  or-ders  shall  be  necessary  to 
constitute  a  vote  of  the  Cenvention."  There  is  not  a  syllable 
in  that  article  that  I  see  before  it  about  General  Convention 
even  to  give  antecedent  to  it.  We  see  that  the  concurrence 
of  both  orders  shall  be  necessary  to  constitute  a  vote  of  the 
Convention,     In  the   third  Ai'ticlc,   "the   Bishops  of  this 


S8 


Church,  when  there  shall  be  three  or  more,  whenever  Gen- 
eral Conventions  are  held,  form  a  separate  House,"  etc. 
Further  on — -"in  all  cases  the  House  of  Bishops  shall  signify 
to  the  Convention  their  approbation  or  disapprobation." 
What  is  the  Convention  now  in  the  meauinfi;  of  the  Consti- 
tution? It  does  not  include  the  House  of  Bishops  in  the 
meaning  of  the  Constitution.  There,  it  is  not  "  General 
Convention ;"  it  is  "  the  Convention ;"  and  it  means  the 
House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  I  suppose.  It  appears 
from  this  that  it  would  be  a  very  bungling  piece  of  work, 
simply  to  change  General  Convention  to  Xational  Council 
wherever  the  term  General  Convention  occurs  in  the  Con- 
stitution ;  because  there  are  many  other  cases  where  Con- 
vention occurs  alone  which  would  have  to  be  changed;  and 
if  you  proceed  to  change  Convention,  wherever  it  occurs,  to 
Council,  then  you  will  have  this  strange  arrangement  that 
the  "House  of  Bishops  shall  signify  to  the  Council  their  ap- 
probation or  disapprobation."  Now  that  is  certainly,  histor- 
ically and  ecclesiastically  speaking,  a  strange  state  of  things 
that  the  House  of  Bishops  is  not  the  Council  and  that  they 
are  to  signify  their  approbation  or  disapprobation  to  those 
who  are  the  Council.  One  word  as  to  the  inconsiderate 
haste  with  wliich  this  is  proposed.  There  are  two  Rubrics 
in  the  Prayer-Book — before  and  after  prayers,  the  special 
prayers  to  be  read  on  the  occasion  of  the  session  of  this 
Convention — in  which  occur  the  terms  General  and  Dioce- 
san Conventions.  It  has  never  been  proposed  here  to 
change  that  rubric,  and  we  should  have  the  rubric  one 
way  and  the  Constitution  the  other ;  and  if  there  is  any  im- 
portance in  changing  words,  it  would  be  a  sad  divergence 
it  seems  to  me.  To  make  this  change  in  the  Constitution 
will  require  three  years,  and  we  cannot  make  this  in  the 
Prayer-Book  until  after  three  years. 

While  I  have  pi'esented  these  difficulties,  I  think  that,  it 
anything  were  to  be  done  with  this,  it  should  be  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Canons,  although  it  is  begged  that  it 
should  not  be  referred  to  that  committee.  I  would  add 
this,  namely,  that  in  the  prayer  which  we  offer  we  pray  that 
we  may  be  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit — for 
what  purpose?  "That  the  comfortable  Gospel  of  Christ 
may  be  truly  preached,  truly  received,  and  truly  followed  in 
all  places."  It  is  an  evangelical  petition ;  and  it  closes 
with  a  Catholic  aspiration ;  but  observe  how  the  faith  of  the 
Church,  as  it  were,  lingers  when  it  approaches  the  Catholic 
aspiration — "  until  at  length  the  whole  of  Thy  dispersed 
sheep,  being  gathered  into  one  fold,  may  be  made  partakers 
of  everlasting  life."  Most  heartily  do  I  endorse  the  evan- 
gelical petition,  and  the  Catholic  aspiration ;  but  let  us  re- 
member that  it  is  the  petition  which  we  offer. 

Hon.  S.  B.  Ruggles — obtained  the  floor,  when 
the  time  of  recess  occurred.     After  which — 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight — moved  to  proceed  with  the  or- 
der of  the  day,  behaving  only  waived  its  consideration. 

Rev.  Dr.  Adams — I  moved  that  the  order  of  the 
day  be  postponed  ;  that  motion  was  seconded  and  pass- 
ed. (Dr.  Haight — when  ?)  Five  minutes  before  12 
o'clock.  I  conceive  that  instead  of  the  gentleman  waiv- 
ing, we  have  postponed  the  order  of  the  day  by  the  ac- 
tion of  this  House.  i 

Rev.  Dk.  Haight — 1  was  in  the  House  and  did  not  > 


I  notice  the  motion.  I  moved  that  the  matter  before  the 
House  be  postponed  for  the  purpose  of  taking  up  the 
order.  I  do  insist  that  unless  we  proceed  with  the  order 
of  the  day 

Rbv.  Dr.  Adams — I  call  the  gentleman  to  order, 
because  Mr.  Ruggles  is  entitled  to  the  floor. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight — asked  permission  of  Mr.  Ruggles 
to  move  the  taking  up  the  order  of  the  day. 

Hon.  S.  B.  Ruggles — however,  would  only  yield  for 
taking  the  sense  of  the' House  upon  the  question  of  post- 
pqaing  the  present  question. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight — declined  to  make  the  motion. 

Hon.  S.  B.  Ruggles  : 

Mn.  Presie.ntd,  I  rise  to  address  this  House  upon  that 
portion  of  the  amendment,  offered  by  my  most  learned 
and  excellent  friend  from  Wisconsin,  which  proposes  that 
the  name  of  this  Church  shall  be  the  National  Convention 
or  Council,  as  the  case  may  be.  It  is  to  discuss  the  proprie- 
ty of  introducing  the  word  National,  that  I  rise  ;  and  it  is 
more  proper  to  do  so,  because  I  am  a  layman,  and  think 
it  is  a  branch  of  Church  affairs  peculiarly  proper  for  lay- 
men to  discuss.  Although  it  may  be  deemed  a  want  of 
modesty  for  them  to  enter  deeply  into  ecclesiastical  matters, 
yet  when  it  comes  to  a  question  of  nationality,  if  there  ever 
was  a  purpose  for  which  the  laity  were  brought  into  the 
Church,  it  was  to  discuss  a  question  like  that.  I  shall  address 
myself  very  much  to  the  laity  of  the  House.  I  shall  ask  a 
caudid  decision  from  both  orders,  but  I  shall  confine  my 
remarks  entirely  to  that  point.  I  wish  to  inquire  whether  . 
or  not  the  introduction  of  this  word  National  into  our  name 
to  denote  and  to  describe  this  Church,  will  be  mischievous — 
whctlier  it  will  be  necessary — whether  it  will  exalt  the  dig- 
nity of  this  body — and,  lastly,  whether  it  will  increase  its 
efficiency,  as  oue  of  the  working  bodies  of  the  Church  Cath- 
olic throughout  the  world.  In  the  first  place,  this  Church 
and  its  character  have  been  very  much  and  learnedly  debat- 
ed this  morning,  as  embracing  only  a  particular  denomina- 
tiou  of  Christians  living  in  these  United  States.  If  I  un- 
derstand the  argument  of  the  acute  and  learned  divine 
who  preceded  me  [Rev.  Dr.  Goodwiu]  this  Church  is  only 
oue  of  several  deiiouiiuatious  of  Christians  who  have 
their  local  habitation  in  these  United  States,  and  nothing 
more.  I  nuiintain,  as  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  investigate 
a  question  of  so  great  importance  and  extent,  that  it  is  some- 
thing more.  I  liave  been  told  by  my  learned  friend  of  the 
clergy  that  this  Church  was  not  established  for  the  whole 
world  by  our  blessed  Lord  and  Redeemer,  Who  came  down 
here  to  save  it.  I  maintain  that  the  Church  does  not  exist 
for  any  one  country  or  for  particular  denominations,  but  for 
the  whole  world.  In  the  prayer  of  our  blessed  Saviour  the 
night  before  His  crucifixion,  so  fullof  parental  tenderness, 
so  exquisitely  pathetic.  His  last  prayer  to  His  Father  was, 
that  we  might  all  be  oue.  It  requires  little  teaching  to  con- 
vince me  that  the  Divine  Author  of  the  Church  meant  to 
make  us  all  one.  If  He  meant  it,  it  is  our  corresponding  duty 
to  attempt,  by  all  lawful  means,  to  become  one.  If  He  did 
intend  to  establish  one  Church  for  the  world — one  universal 
Church — one  Catholic  Church  (aud  if  I  am  wrong  my  learn- 
ed clerical  friends  will  correct  me),  and  if  this  Church 
was  instituted  by  its  Divine  Head,  it  is  a  Holy  Church  ;  and 


39 


If  He  intended  to  make  a  Church  for  the  whole  world,  anfl 
did  found  it  Himself,  it  is  the  Holy  Catholic  Church.  The 
Church  in  carryiug  out  that  Divine  injunction,  every  Sun- 
day bids  us  pray  "  We  pray  for  Thy  Holy  Church  universal, 
that  it  may  be  so  guided  and  governed  by  Thy  good  Spirit, 
that  all  who  profess  and  call  tliciiiselves  Christians  may  be 
led  into  the  way  of  truth,  and  hold  the  faith  in  unity  of  Spirit, 
in  the  bond  of  peace,  and  in  righteousness  of  life."  There- 
fore we  are  carrying  out  in  the  daily  Morning  service  of  this 
Churcli  that  blessed  injunction  of  the  Saviour  to  have  one 
holy  Church  universal.  That  prayer  is  like  the  drum-beat 
of  the  British  empire  that  was  heard  round  the  world,  for  it 
encircles  the  globe,  in  the  Morning  and  Evening  Prayers  of 
the  Church,  ascending  to  the  Great  Architect  of  the  universe 
from  all  the  Churches  catholic — that  they  may  "  hold  tlie  faith 
in  unity  of  Spirit." How  is  this  Church  distributed  geo- 
graphically ?  the  ancient  Church  occupied  a  small  portion  of 
the  surface  of  the  globe — a  little  part  of  .\-sia  Minor,  Jerusa- 
lem, and  a  little  part  of  the  coast  of  the  Mediterranean  sea  ; 
but  all  without  and  beyond  was  barbarian  darkness.  It  knew 
nothing  of  the  East.  It  knew  nothing  of  this  other  hemi- 
sphere. It  was  a  small  speck  on  the  world's  surface.  What 
does  it  occupy  now  ?  It  has  circumnavigated  the  globe  ;  it 
embraces  both  hemispheres — all  the  continents,  new  and  old. 
It  formed  a  Christendom  out  of  the  barbarians  of  Eu- 
rope. It  has  extended  into  the  southern  hemisphere.  Its 
prayer  is  heard  from  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  from  Calcutta 
from  the  furthest  Indies, — until  every  portion  of  this  globe 
unites  in  one  common  prayer.  Now,  what  is  our  duty,  if  we 
seek  to  obey  the  injunction  of  our  Lord  and  Redeemer?  It  is 
to  make  that  great  cosmical,  world  embracing-Church,  one. 
What  are  we?  How  much  of  the  work  are  we  doing?  and 
what  do  we  represent?  We  occupy  a  very  respectable  por- 
tion of  the  surface  of  the  earth — not  all  of  it,  by  any  means, 
but  a  very  respectable  portion ;  and  we  have  a  very  eligi- 
ble and  desirable  position  in  the  part  of  the  world  we  occu- 
py for  a  Church  :  that  piece  of  land  on  this  globe  bounded 
on  the  East  by  the  Atlantic,  on  the  West  by  the  Pacific, 
extending  from  the  fragrant  groves  of  the  South  and  the  Gulf 
of  Mexico,  to  the  Polar  basin.  It  olfersa  very  good  site  for 
the  Church.  It  has  all  the  elements,  powers,  capacities,  and 
prospects  in  the  future,  to  form  the  central  site  of  a  great 
world-embracing  Church.  It  is  not  only  a  good  position  but 
a  pre-emini'ntly  important  position  geographically.  We 
look  out  upon  both  oceans  ;  and  in  fact  we  shall  become 
the  centre  of  the  great  -systems,  which  I  can  not  but  think 
my  excellent  friend  from  Pennsylvania  did  slightly  caricature. 
We  are  earnestly  engaged  in  this  evevated,  cosmical, 
world-wide  work  of  making  a  Church  universal.  -We  do 
not  deserve  sarcasm  nor  ridicule.  Our  work  is  honest ;  it  is 
large  and  comprehensive  and  Christian  ;  and  we  do  not  de- 
serve to  be  caricatured. 

Hev.  Dr.  Goodwin — Will  the  gentleman  allow  me 
with  all  my  heart,  to  di.sclaim  any  disposition  to  caricature 
or  speak  sarcastically  of  the  work  of  the  Church  ? 

Mr.  RiiGGLKS  (resuming)— Now,  sir,  in  what  sort  of  polit- 
ical condition  is  this  part  of  the  globe  which  we  occupy  for 
the  Church— that  which  we  call  our  country?  I  will  now 
particularly  address  myself  to  those  friends  whom  I  so 
gladly  welcome  back  to  the  Convention.     I  wish  to  remove 


from  their  minds  any  difficulties  upon  the  subject  of  nation- 
ality or  any  political  subject  whatever.  But  I  must  inquire 
what  is  the  political  character  of  that  piece  of  the  world's 
surface  which  we  call  our  country  ?  In  the  first  place,  I  mean 
to  say  that  this  Church  exists  on  that  portion  of  the  sur- 
face of  the  globe,  entirely  independent  of  any  political  con- 
ne<'tion  with  any  government  of  that  country.  This  Church 
is  embosomed  between  two  oceans  on  this  geographical  sur- 
face ;  it  does  not  belong  to  the  government  of  that  coun- 
try. This  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  as  was  most  signif- 
icantly defined  in  its  origin,  is  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  not  of,  but  in  the  United  States.  We  do  not  use  the 
word  in  the  possessive,  but  we  use  the  geographical  preposi- 
tion in  ;  and  this  is  not  a  verbal  criticism  ;  the.se  two  little 
prepositions  mean  very  diflferent  things.  It  is  the  Protes- 
tant Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  'therefore,  we 
have  nothing  to  do  with  the  government  of  this  country. 
The  government  is  not  a  religioifs  body.  The  Constitution, 
the  Government  of  the  United  States,  has  no  religion :  I  am 
sorry  it  is  so.  It  has  been  defined  as  a  Godless  Government ; 
it  is  not  quite  so ;  but  the  poHtical  government  of  the  Unit- 
ed States  is  not  a  religious  body — the  more  is  the  pity.  It 
has  no  connection  with  the  Church.  Of  late,  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  Unitf  d  States  has  taken  upon  it  a  little  religion, 
for  it  has  put  on  all  of  its  coins  :  "  In  God  we  trust ;"  which 
was  the  first  step  that  I  have  ever  known  taken  in  this  Gov- 
ernment to  recognize  a  Supreme  Being.  How  does  the 
Church  exist  witliin  the  geographical  limits  of  thisnation? 
It  is  no  sort  of  consequence  what  form  of  Government  that 
nation  has.  It  is  of  no  possible  importance  whether  these 
thirty-five  million  people  living  between  these  oceans  are  a 
collection  of  atoms  without  any  coherence  with  each  other, 
or  rising  to  the  dignity  of  an  association,  or  a  confed- 
eracy, or  a  union,  or  a  nation.  With  these  questions 
the  Church  has  nothing  to  do ;  it  exists  entirely  apart  from 
all  questions  of  political  Government.  This  Ship  of  State  in 
which  the  Church  is  embarked  is  the  subject  of  great  differ- 
ences of  opinion  between  us  at  the  North  and  some  of  our 
much  esteemed  friends  at  the  South,  we  holding  it  to  be  a 
union,  and  they,  on  the  other  hand,  holding  it  to  be  a  con- 
federacy or  league.  But  we  can  not  discuss  those  questions 
here.  We  meet  on  common  ground.  It  is  no  matter  to  the 
Church  whether  she  be  embarked  in  one  great  majestic  line- 
of-battle-ship,  or  a  flotilla  of  forty  gunboats  ;  it  is  nothing  to 
us;  it  is  enough  for  us  to  know  that  the  Church  is  on  board, 
and  we  liave  got  to  go  with  the  ship,  be  it  one  or  be  it  many. 
I  must,  however,  contend  that  in  forming  the  government 
of  the  United  States  and  defining  its  name  to  be  the  United 
States  of  America,  a  political  entity  of  some  sort  was  created, 
call  it  what  you  may,  the  Union,  the  Nation,  or  anything  else. 
That  political  entity  has  within  itself  enough  of  the  func- 
tions, attributes,  and  faculties  of  a  Nation,  to  preserve 
its  own  existence,  and  to  preserve  its  geograpical  integ- 
rity. We  must  take  that  as  a  fact.  We  may  deny  all  else, 
h\it  we  can  not  now  deny  that  that  political  entity  called  the 
United  States  has  tlnit  inherent  faculty  and  function  which 
belongs  to  a  sovereign  government  to  preserve  its  existence 
and  its  territorial  integrity;  and  I  pray  to  God  it  may,  and  I  do 
not  doubt  it  will,  preserve  it  for  countless  ages  to  come.  The 
integrity  of  tliat  great  territorial  area  docs  concern  this 
Church.     The  fact  of  its  being  occupied  by  one  nation  is  of 


40 


interest  to  the  Church,  because  we  wish  to  be  one  great 
united  Church.  Why  is  a  large  area  desirable?  It  is  desir- 
able that  we,  this  American  people,  may  have  due  influ- 
ence when  the  great  convocation  of  the  nations  of  the 
earth  takes  place  to  form  one  universal  Church — an  event 
which  is  certain  in  the  future.  [Messages,  elsewhere  men- 
tioned, from  the  House  of  Bishops,  were  here  received  and 
read ;   when  Mr.  Ruggles  continued]. 

I  was  proceeding  to  say  that  this  political  structure  called 
the  United  States  has  the  power  to  preserve  its  own  life  and 
its  own  territorial  integrity.  Having  that  power,  it  must  be 
considered  to  possess  in  the  view  of  all  other  surrounding 
nations  the  essentials  of  a  nation.  A  political  structure 
that  has  that  transcendent  power  in  itself  may  fairly  be 
denominated  a  nation.  But  it  is  not  necessary  to  use  the 
word  national  for  the  councils  or  conventions  of  this  Church, 
because  it  would  be  tautological.  The  United  States  ex  vi 
termini  is  a  nation.  Foreign  nations  do  not  go  into  the 
question  of  its  internal  government.  They  look  at  it  liv- 
ing as  one,  and  see  it  preserving  its  Hfe  as  one  ;  and,  there- 
fore, the  external  nations  treat  the  word  United  States  as 
signifying  a  nation,  and,  if  they  do,  it  is  not  necessary  for 
us  to  use  the  word  national  in  designating  this  Church; 
the  Church  of  the  United  States  is  the  Church  of  the  Na- 
tion. That  is  all  that  is  needed.  It  is  enough  for  me  to  be 
a  citizen  of  the  United  States.  I  need  not  claim  to  be  a  citi- 
zen of  the  nation.  To  be  a  member  of  the  Church  of  the 
United  States  is  enough  for  me.  What  I  mean  to  say  is, 
that  the  use  of  the  word  National  is  superfluous  and  unnec- 
essary. We  are  willing  to  leave  it  "  in  the  United  States," 
and  they  may  call  it  what  they  please.  It  is  enough  to  be 
"in  the  United  States."  Why  is  it  necessary  to  preserve 
our  territorial  area  for  ecclesiastical  purposes  ?  I  do  not 
speak  with  the  national  pride  of  every  citizen  of  the  na- 
tion. I  speak  of  the  ecclesiastical  necessity  of  having  a 
large  area.  We  ought  to  have  a  large  territorial  area  be- 
cause the  other  branches  of  the  Church  of  the  world  have 
large  areas,  and  that  we  may  have  something  like  an  equal- 
ity of  representation  in  the  convocation  of  the  Church  of 
the  whole  world  that  is  coming  sooner  or  later.  The  great 
empire  of  Russia  has  twice  the  territorial  area  that  we 
have ;  it  is  inferior  in  quality  perhaps,  so  that  the  territory 
of  this  and  that  nation  are  probably  about  equal ;  but  she 
has  twice  the  geographical  area  in  which  she  has  an  immense 
Church  transmitted  to  her  most  legitimately  from  the  gen- 
uine Greek  Church  as  established  by  the  Fathers,  and  car- 
ried there  by  a  Greek  princess  tied  to  her  barbarian  hus- 
band, but  through  that  husband  and  that  Greek  princess 
diffused  through  that  vast  empire.  When  we  have  an 
Ecumenical  Council  that  Church  will  be  represented ;  and  I 
wish  that  this  Church  shall  stand  on  an  equal  ground. 
What  shall  we  say  of  the  Anglican  Cliurch,  with  her  little 
island  and  with  her  outlying  empire  covering  the  whole 
"■lobe  'i  When  that  great  meeting  takes  place,  this  Church 
ought  to  show  an  etjual  dignity  and  an  equal  weight,  if  pos- 
sible ;  and  it  is  do  time  to  diminish  her  territory,  but  rather 
to  increase  it.  It  is  our  duty  as  Churchmen,  without  med- 
dling with  political  questions,  if  possible,  to  extend  it.  The 
empire  of  Russia  is  a  religious  empire ;  it  is  eminently  re- 
ligious— far  more  religious  than  ours.  Religion  pervades 
(he  whole  of  it.     Religion  lias  fought  its  battles.     Her  re- 


ligion defended  the  empire  in  the  struggle  of  1812;  and  I 
will  tell  my  friends,  that  a  single  sermon  of  the  Archbishop 
of  Moscow  did  more  than  any  one  thing  to  drive  back  the 
French  invasion.  I  must  speak  of  Russia  with  profound 
respect.  We  must  meet  her  in  convention  when  the  great 
Ecumenical  Convention  occurs ;  and  therefore  I  wish  to  in- 
crease our  territory.  That  great  Russia  recognizes  the  ex- 
istence of  the  American  Union  as  necessary  "to  preserve  the 
political  equilibrium  of  the  globe."  I  say,  to  carry  out  the 
same  sentiment,  the  extension  of  the  American  Church  to 
its  widest  limits  is  necessary  to  the  ecclesiastical  equilibrium 
of  the  globe.  Now,  occurs  a  point  upon  which  I  wish  to 
make  some  remarks.  At  the  last  General  Convention,  the 
Metropolitan  of  Canada  was  invited  to  a  seat  in  our  body;  and 
the  wish  was  expressed  by  him  that  some  measures  might 
be  taken  to  secure  a  closer  union  with  the  Anglican  Church 
and  the  other  Churches  throughout  the  world.  The 
debates  show  that  the  subject  of  the  importance  of  a 
union  with  the  Anglican  Church  was  particularly  alluded 
to  by  the  Lord  Bishop ;  and  his  proposition  was  supple- 
mented by  a  suggestion  in  that  Convention  that  the  great 
council  which  he  proposed  should  be  extended  so  as  to  in- 
clude the  orthodox  Church  of  Russia.  Now,  what  took 
place  in  that  Convocation  of  the  Anglican  Church?  As 
Bishop  Fulford  had  proposed,  the  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury issued  his  invitation  to  all  the  Bishops  of  the  Church, 
not  only  Anglican  but  American.  He  did  not  call  a  Coun- 
cil, because  it  had  not  reached  that  degree  of  maturity  yet ; 
it  was  called  a  Conference.  On  the  subject  of  the  woi-d 
Conference  I  can  only  say  that  in  civil  life  it  is  one  of  the 
highest  of  diplomatic  facilities.  Nations  have  Conferences 
where  they  meet  by  their  representatives.  A  Conference  is 
the  highest  mode  of  diplomatic  meeting.  A  Conference  of 
the  Church  is  not  so  trifling  a  matter.  This  Conference 
took  place ;  and  nineteen  of  our  Bishops  attended.  Now 
we  naturally  ask  what  took  place.  Those  who  attended 
that  Conference  from  this  country  were  gladly  received  on 
their  return ;  and  we  have  expressed  our  opinions,  warmly 
approving  their  attendance.  The  resolutions  generally  are 
not  of  an  organic  character  except  the  single  one  introduc- 
ed in  respect  to  Natal,  which  suggested  that  they 
should  elect  the  Bishop  by  clergy  and  laity.  But  that  is 
immaterial.  What  concerns  us  is  that  they  passed  this  res- 
olution unanimously : 

Resolution  4.  That,  in  the  opinion  of  this  Conference, 
unitv  of  faith  and  discipline  will  be  best  maintained  among 
the  several  branches  of  the  AngUcan  Communion  by  due 
and  canonical  subordination  of  the  synods  of  the  several 
branches  to  the  higher  authority  of  a  synod  or  synods 
above  them. 

That  is  an  approach  towards  an  organism.  There  is  an  ec- 
clesiastical Council  suggested — the  formation  of  a  synod,  su- 
perior to  this  Convention,  superior  to  that  of  any  local  Church. 
That  is  some  evidence  that  the  drift  in  that  direction  is 
pretty  rapid.  We  shall  reach  this  General  Council  a 
little  sooner  than  is  supposed.  In  view  of  the  probability 
that  this  Church  will  have  to  be  represented  there  in  some 
form,  it  may  as  well  be  represented  as  the  Convention  of 
the  United  States  as  to  be  represented  as  the  National  Coun- 
cil of  the  United  States.  The  two  terms,  as  I  said  before, 
are  synonymous.     Whoever  comes  from  the  Church  in  the 


41 


United  States  -n-ill  have  sufficient  authority  and  need  not  be 
called  the  representative  of  the  "  National  Church  of  the 
United  States." 

Two  messages  were  received  from  the  House  of  Bish- 
ops announcing  tlieir  concurrence  with  the  House  of 
Deputies  in  their  action  as  announced  by  their  messages 
No.  8  and  No.  9. 

Rev.  Dr.  Norton,  of  Virginia — I  have  been  wanting 
some  time  to  get  the  Moor,  but  not  that  I  desired  to  make  a 
long  speech.  My  aim  is  not  to  pursue  any  of  those  inquir- 
ies that  have  been  raised  by  other  gentlemen,  but  rather  to 
draw  in  from  their  limit  to  the  consideration  of  the  simple 
question  involved  in  the  resolution  which  was  submitted 
yesterday  evening.  I  may  say  that  I  can  not  view  without 
profound  admiration  the  expansive  power  of  the  reverend 
gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  [Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin].  Why, 
sir,  I  feel  disposed  to  bestow  upon  him  the  encomium  which 
was  conferred  upon  an  eminent  lawyer  in  my  part  of  the 
world,  of  whom  it  was  said,  he  could  erect  a  pyramid  upon 
the  point  of  a  needle.  (Laughter.)  And  it  may  be  said  of 
other  gentlemen  who  have  discussed  this  question  that  they 
are  htile  inferior  to  him  in  that  respect.  I  have  been  al- 
most disposed  to  withdraw  from  the  whole  question  because 
of  the  alarming  subjects  which  seem  to  be  connected  with 
it.  Let  me  beg  the  reverend  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania 
not  for  a  moment  to  believe  that  we  are  beginning  now  to 
organize  this  Church.  That  has  been  too  long  and  too  well 
organized  for  any  layman  tq  be  alarmed  at  any  charges  ; 
made  against  his  Churchmanship  or  Christianity.  I  take  it 
that  in  this  proposition  to  change  the  name  of  our  delibera- 
tive assemblies,  no  man's  Churchmanship  or  no  man's  Chris- 
tianity is  at  stake.  The  whole  question  is  one  simply  of 
names.  And  with  regard  to  this  proposed  change  of 
names,  of  course  it  is  objectionable  because  it  is  a  change. 
It  is  objectionable  likewise,  because  we  have  become  accus- 
tomed to  the  name  convention  ;  though  I  have  not  heard  a 
gentleman  who,  if  it  were  now  an  original  question,  would 
not  now,  with  the  present  lights  before  him,  use  council  in- 
stead of  convention.  Xo  gentleman  has  expressed  the  op- 
posite idea.  It  is  no  imputation  upon  the  wisdom  of  our 
venerable  Fathers  who  organized  the  American  Church,  un- 
able as  they  were  to  foresee  all  the  multiform  activities  of 
this  great  people  which  should  call  for  the  name  convention 
to  be  applied  to  such  various  assemblies — to  suppose  that 
they,  if  they  could  be  with  us  to-day  to  choose  a  new  name, 
would  take  some  other  than  that  of  convention.  If 
this  be  a  mere  question  of  prejudice,  of  association,  of  uu- 
willinguess  to  make  a  change  even  in  names,  let  me  say 
that  there  is  no  Diocese  represented  upon  this  floor  which 
has  so  old  an  association  with  the  word  convention  as  the 
Diocese  of  Virginia.  The  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania 
has  spoken  this  morning  as  though  this  word  first  came  in- 
to use  as  an  ecclesiastical  word  at  the  time  when  the  Gen- 
eral Conveution  first  assembled.  Let  nie  tell  that  gentle- 
man that  the  establishment  of  the  General  Convention  is 
in  our  times  almost,  by  comparison  with  the  usage  of  this 
word  with  the  Church  of  Virginia.  We  have  the  complete 
record  of  the  convention  of  the  Church  in  Virginia  which 
was  held  laore  than  150  years  ago.  And  notwithstanding 
all  our  associations  with  this  word  in  former  years,  we  in 
Virginia  have  agreed  with  other  Southern  dioceses  to  adopt 

6 


the  name  council.  And  our  old  prejudices  against  it  hai'e 
passed  away,  and  use  has  made  it  familiar  to  us;  and  we 
have  heard  on  many  sides  of  us  a  wish  expressed  that  we 
would  retain  the  name  in  hopes  that  other  dioceses  would 
adopt  the  name,  and  that  it  would  become  finally  the  gen- 
eral term  adopted  by  our  Church.  Now,  it  seems  to  me 
that  the  indications  are  plain  that  there  is  a  disposition  on 
the  part  of  dioceses  to  adopt  this  name.  Several  have 
done  so,  and  the  other  day  we  admitted  a  new  Diocese  with 
this  name  council  for  their  deliberative  assembly,  indicat- 
ing clearly,  I  think,  not  so  much  a  deliberate  expression  of 
opinion  on  the  part  of  the  General  Convention  that  that 
name  was  right,  or  that  the  Diocese  had  a  right  to  it,  but, 
at  least,  that  the  General  Convention  is  not  inclined  to 
place  any  obstacle  in  the  way  of  the  adoption  of  that  name. 
I  have  promised  not  to  detain  this  Convention,  and  though 
very  much  tempted  to  remark  upon  a  number  of  difficulties 
that  are  supposed  to  be  in  the  way  of  our  adopting  this 
resolution,  let  me  say,  that  if  the  reverend  gentleman  from 
Pennsylvania  will  take  the  word  council  and  carry  it 
through  the  entire  constitution  with  all  the  amendments, 
he  will  find  but  a  single  incongruity  there — that  which 
he  called  attention  to  this  morning,  and  which  exists  in 
precisely  the  same  form  and  to  the  same  extent,  whether 
you  read  council  or  convention  ;  it  was  an  oversight.  We 
are  told  that  the  adoption  of  this  resolution  now  will  indi- 
cate a  purpose  on  the  part  of  the  Church  to  change  the 
name.  I  will'not  say  purpose  but  a  willingness  on  the  part 
of  this  Convention  to  use  the  word  council,  on  a  three  years 
proof  to  see  whether  among  all  the  dioceses  a  majority  of 
them  shall  be  disposed  to  adopt  this  measure.  That  is  all 
that  is  involved.  It  was  mentioned  that  the  passage  of 
this  resolution  was  an  interference  with  diocesan  rights,  in 
the  judgment  of  the  learned  gentleman  [Judge  Conyng- 
ham],  eminent  for  his  learning  and  ability,  also  from  Penn- 
sylvania. If  we  send  out  to  the  Dioceses  this  preliminary 
measure,  is  it  not  plain  that  nothing  can  be  fixed  for  three 
years,  and  that  if  adopted  at  all  even  by  the  next  General 
Convention,  it  must  previously  have  received  the  consent  of 
the  majority  of  dioceses  declaring  their  willingness  to  make 
the  change.  It  at  least  gives  them  an  opportunity  to  ex- 
press dissent.  Assuredly,  unless  at  the  end  of  three  years 
a  majority  of  the  dioceses  represented  on  this  floor,  having 
had  the  question  .before  them,  as  this  year,  are  ready  to 
adopt  it,  the  whole  attempt  proves  of  no  avail.  I  do  not 
feel  inclined  to  prosecute  the  subject  further.  I  have  re- 
fretted  that  so  many  questions  have  become  connected  with 
this  simple  one  of  change  of  name.  I  should  be  very  much 
gratified  if  the  reverend  gentleman  from  Wisconsin,  who 
ofl'ered  the  amendment  to  my  resolution,  would  take  up 
some  other  word  than  that  proposed  by  him,  upon  which 
we  could  all  unite  and  take  a  fair  vote  upon  the  single  ques- 
tion as  to  the  name  convenliun. 

Kev.  Dr.  Adams.— Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  to 
explain?  (Dr.  Norton— Certainly.)  If  the  gentle- 
man from  Virginia  will  be  satisfied  with  the  word  Coun- 
cil for  the  word  Convention  in  tlie  Constitution,  and  for 
the  words  General  Convention  the  words  Triennial 
Council  or  Great  Council,  according  to  his  choice,  I  am 
perfectly  willing  lo  withdraw  my  amendment,  and  let  it 
come  to  a  fair  and  square  vote  upon  his  resolution.     Rut 


42 


I  would  say  that  to  keep  the  word  General  is  simply  to 
complicate  us  with  all  ecclesiastical  history ;  because  in 
all  ecclesiastical  nistory  the  fact  is.  that  there  are  four 
classes  of  councils— the  General  or  Ecumenical  Council, 
the  Provincial  or  State  Council,  the  Diocesan  Council. 
Now  if  we  leave  the  word  General,  we  simply  commit 
an  ecclesiastical  blunder,  an  Irish  bull  perpetrated  by 
this  House;  and,  therefore,  if  the  gentleman  from  Vir- 
ginia will  substitute  the  words  Triennial  Council  for  the 
General  Convention,  or  the  term  Great  Council,  I  am 
perfectly  willing  to  withdraw  my  amendment,  and  have 
a  square  vote  on  Dr.  Norton's  amendment. 

Rev.  Dr.  Norton.— I  am  much  gratified  at  the  spirit 
manifested  by  the  gentleman  from  Wisconsin.  I  have 
hastily  drawn  up  such  an  addition  to  my  resolution  as 
covers  precisely  the  ground  the  gentleman  has  indicated. 
It  adds  to  my  former-resolution  the  words  "and  that  the 
word  Triennial  be  substituted  lor  the  word  General 
wherever  the  latter  word  is  followed  by  the  word  Con- 
vention in  said  Constitution." 

Rev.  Dr.  Mahan.— It  seems  to  me  that  there  is  no 
,  objection  to  the  use  of  the  word  General,  because  the 
term  will  not  be  simply  "General  Council,"  but  the 
"General  Council  of  the  United  States."  That  makes 
a  title  distinct  from  any  of  those  which  the  gentleman 
mentions.  There  is  the  Ecumenical  Council,  which  re- 
lates to  the  whole  world;  and  there  is  the  General  Coun- 
cil, in  antiquity ;  and  then  there  is  the  Diocesan  Synod, 
etc.  The  limiting  term  of  the  United  States  sufficiently 
qualifies  the  term  General  Council.  If  we  adopt  any 
such  term  as  tiiennial  then  we  pin  ourselves  to  that  par- 
ticular term  of  years.  ,  We  adopt  a  mere  accident  as  the 
name  of  the  council. 

Rev.  Dr.  Howe.— I  simply  have  to  ask  if  calling  this  a 
General  Council  would  be  an  Irish  bull,  what  sort  of  bull 
or  what  sort  of  animal  would  it  be  for  us  to  say  that  there 
shall  be  a  Triennial  Council  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  in  every  third 
year '?     (Laughter.) 

Mk.  C.  C.  Parsons.— If  the  gentleman  will  yield  the 
floor  I  will  introduce  the  following  resolution:  [which 
was  to  the  effect  that  the  subject  of  a  change  of  name 
should  be  referred  to  a  joint  committee,  to  consist  of 
three  Bishops,  three  clerical  and  two  lay  deputies.]  I 
wish  to  say  a  few  words  in  explanation,  first,  relative  to 
personal  usage.  I  do  not  wish  to  be  a  member  of  this 
committee,  but  wish  the  best  minds  to  be  placed  upon 
this  committee ;  and,  secondly,  I  wish  to  say  that  when 
the  Committee  on  Canons  made  their  report  a  sh4rt 
time  since,  I  would  have  been  content  to  have  allowed 
that  report  to  remain  upon  the  table,  as  the  Diocese  of  I 
Kansas  has  not  called  for  the  change  from  Convention  to  i 
Council;  but  I  am  obliged  to  confess  that  when  this  dis- 
cussion was  for  a  long  time  continued,  I  became  deeply 
interested.  I  saw  in  my  imagination,  under  the  fervid 
and  eloquent  remarks  of  several  deputies  on  this  floor, 
this  Church  risen   to  a  high  and  august  position  upon 


the  earth;  and  1  desired,  so  far  as  it  was  in  my  power,  to 
furnish  her  with  every  weapon  and  every  part  of  armor 
necessary  for  her  lo  fight  the  good  fight  with  assurance 
of  success;  and  hence,  if  it  be  possible  that  this  change 
of  the  word  Convention  into  Council  can  be  made,  I 
earnestly  desire  that  it  may  be  made;  but  at  the  same 
time  it  seems  to  me  that  no  great  change  in  our  Consti- 
tution or  Canons  should  take  place  until  it  has  gone 
through  the  machinery  of  a  committee;  and  I  inquire 
whether  this  House  is  ready  to  vote  upon  this  question  ? 
It  seems  to  me  not ;  because,  first,  if  the  vote  be  adverse, 
it  would  certainly  be  unjust  to  the  memorialists  from 
Georgia,  who  have  not  been  able  to  have  a  hearing  be- 
fore the  Committee.     If  the  vote  should  be  favorable,  it 
would  certainly  be  wrong  to  adopt  a  change  until  the 
amendment  introducing  it  had  been  carefully  elaborated 
and  reported  upon  by  a  committee.     With  regard  to  its 
being  a  joint  committee,  I  desire  to  say  that  I  have  been 
told  by  one  of  our  Right  Reverend  Fathers  that  this 
same  question  has  been  before  the  House  of  Bishops. 
Whether  it  has  been  decided  or  not  I  do  not  know,  but 
I  believe  it  has  not  been  decided.     It  is  important  that 
they  should  join  in  the  consideration  of  this  question. 
If  their  i'eport  be  adverse,  a  committee  of  conference  of 
course  would  be  necessary.     If  their  report  be  favorable, 
they  can  assist  in  throwing  light  upon  the  subject.     It 
seems  to  me  that  the  discussion  of  this  question  in  this 
crude  manner  only  places  us  in  a  false  light.     I  dare  to 
say  that  if  these  gentlemen  who  have  discussed  the  ques- 
tion so  ably  were  put  upon  the  committee  some  satisfac- 
tory conclusion  might  be  reached.     I  desire  not  to  be  a 
member  of  the  committee,  and  I  shall  expect  that  the 
President  will  not  appoint  me  upon  it.     I  believe  that  if 
the  resolution    as   I    now   propose  it    be  adopted,    the 
present  debate  will  end.     And  when  this  House  takes 
up  the  debate  again,  it  will  be  with  a  clearer  idea  of  the 
work  before  them.     One  word  in  regard  to  phraseology. 
We  have  had  references  to  Canons,  Constitution,  and 
the  Prayer-Book.     There  seems  to  be  a  great  deal  of 
doubt  as  to  how  far  the  amendment  should  be  made.     I 
have  therefore  used  the  words  "in  part" — this  is  to  say 
that  the  committee  are  to  consider  the  subject  of  a  change 
in  part  or  wholly. 

Dr.  Norton — Does  the  resolution  call  for  such  a  re- 
port as  would  give  us  a  proposition  in  definite  shape  for 
our  action '? 

Mr.  Parson.s — No;  it  intrusts  that  grave  matter  to 
a  committee  without  instructions. 

Hon.  S.  B.  Ruggles — Does  the  gentleman  indulge 
in  the  mon.strous  supposition  that  two  laymen  are  equal 
to  any  three  of  the  clergy  V     (Laughter.) 

Mk.  Parsons — Will  it  meet  the  views  of  the  dele- 
gate from  New  York  if  I  make  it  three  laymen  and  three 
clergymen  ? 

Mr.  Ruggles— Certainly. 

Mr.  Parsons — Then  I  accept  the  amendment. 

Mr. As  I  understand  the  question  before  the 


43 


House  it  is  simply  whether  the  word  Conventinn  be 
chaneed  to  Council.  That  is  not  the  name  of  the 
Church  ;  it  is  the  name  of  this  body. 

Mr.  Paksons  thereupon  substituted  "nomenclature" 
for  "name"  in  his  resolution,  and  afterward  changed  it 
to  "designation." 

Rev.  Dr.  Adams — 1  wish  to  be  permitted  to  with- 
draw altogether  my  amendment,  if  the  House  will  allow 
it,  and  then  I  am  perfectly  content  to  go  in  upon  Dr. 
Mahan's  explanation  and  vote  for  the  words  "  General 
Council  in  the  United  States." 

Judge  Battle — I  wish  to  say  a  tew  words  on  this 
subject.  I  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  this  House  to  a 
plain,  practical  difficulty.  It  is  a  discussion  about  words 
— whether  we  shall  take  the  word  convention  or  the 
word  council  as  designating  the  general  legislative  body 
of  this  Church  in  the  United  States.  Now  does  the 
word  convention  express  the  idea  which  we  have  all 
along  entertained  with  regard  to  this  legislative  body? 
I  believe  that  it  will  be  admitted  that  the  word  conven- 
tion expresses  the  idea.  Now  why  change  it?  Why 
adopt  another  word?  Certainly  there  can  be  no  good 
reason  for  it,  unless  the  word  convention  has  in  some 
way  become  degraded.  We  were  told  the  other  day  that 
it  would  become  so — that  it  was  so  ccjmmonly  used  on 
all  occasions  that  it  was  not  a  proper  word  to  signify  the 
general  legislative  body  of  tWs  Church.  In  answer  to  that 
objection  I  will  not  use  the  precise  language  the  speakei' 
used — the  President  has  requested  that  it  should  not  be 
used  again.  Now  what  word  is  there  in  the  English  lan- 
guage that  can  be  applied  that  is  incapable  of  becoming 
degraded?  Let  us  try  the  word  (/wod.  I  believe  that  is  a 
good  word — now  see  what  a  vast  variety  of  cases  there 
are  in  which  it  may  he  applied.  A  loving  husband 
speaks  of  his  good  wife.  The  wine-bibber  speaks  of  his 
good  wine;  and  if  he  is  profane  he  adds  an  adjective. 
A  gambler  of  his  good  luck.  And  some  friend  will  speak 
of  another  of  whom  he  does  not  entertain  a  very  high 
opinion,  and  will  say  "he  is  a  good  fellow."  Nowhere 
is  the  word  yuod  applied  in  a  variety  of  ways;  and  yet 
who  will  object  to  the  word  good  on  that  account?  The 
same  is  true  of  the  word  convention.  If  we  change  that 
word  to  council  will  it  suit  any  better?  May  not  that 
be  used  by  all  the  religious  denominations?  Then  why 
should  we  throw  aside  a  good  word  ?  I  admit  that  if  we 
had  a  word  which  implied  a  grand  humbug  or  something 
of  that  sort,  it  should  be  changed ;  but  no  such  idea  as 
that  can  be  attached  to  the  term  convention.  So  it 
seems  to  me  that  in  a  plain  and  practical  view  of  this 
question,  we  are  at  least  discussing  the  question  whether 
we  shall  pass  from  tweedle-dum  to  tweedle-dee. 

Mr. : — There    is    a   difference    between 

Convention   and   Council.     A  word  not  only  denotes 
but  it  connotes.     The  word  Convention  means  an  occa- 
sional assembling  for  any  purpose,  as  the  Convention  of 
a  State  to  alter  the  Constitution.     It  is  inappropriately 
used   to   denote   any  meeting  which  is  regular   and  or- 


dained by  the  organic  law.  For  this  reason  I  would 
like  to  get  rid  of  the  word  Convention.  The  dillerenee 
is  not  that  between  tweedle-dum  and  tweedle-dee.  The 
word  Council  conveys  the  idea  of  a  meeting  regulated 
by  organic  law. 

Mh. : — I  do  not  see  any  necessity  for  such' 

a  change — every  Council  is  a  Convention,  but  not  every 
Convention  a  Council. 

Mr. : — I  was  told  by  one  of  the  members 

of  the  House  of  Bishops  that  they  are  of  the  opinion 
that,  as  the  matter  now  stands,  any  diocese  has  the  right 
to  use  the  word  council. 

Rev.  Dr.  IIaight — Mr.  President,  is  it  right  for  any 
gentleman  to  state  upon  the  floor  of  this  House  what  is 
the  opinion' of  the  House  of  Bishops  ? 

President — Certainly  not. 

Judge  Otis — It  is  evident  that  the  proposition  be- 
fore the  House  for  passing  the  resolution  of  the  clerical 
Deputy  from  Virginia  would  not  have  the  effect  that  he 
,  designs  even  if  adopted  word  for  word  as  he  proposes  it, 
or  as  amended  by  Dr.  Adams.  This  Church  for  seven- 
ty-nine years  from  its  first  organization  has  legislated  in 
a  particular  manner  ;  to  use  the  language  of  the  lawyer, 
it  uses  meet  and  apt  words  to  accomplish  the  objects  in 
view.  If  we  convey  land,  we  must  use  words  that  have 
the  operative  effect  to  convey  the  land.  If  we  repeal  a 
law,  we  must  use  the  wordi  necessary  to  repeal  the  law. 
A  resolution  can  never  change  a  canon,  much  less  the 
Constitution,  much  less  the  Prayer  Book.  If  passed  it 
will  be  a  nullity.  Therefore  it  has  been  announced  that 
they  do  not  want  it  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Can- 
ons. As  one  of  that  committee  I  am  very  glad,  for  other 
CTentlemen  could  be  constituted  into  a  committee.  But 
some  one  must  put  it  into  the  proper  form  to  accomplish 
the  object  they  desire.  The  change  necessitates  about 
twenty  changes  in  the  Constitution  and  four  in  the 
Prayer  Book,  and  these  must  be  effected  by  somebody. 

r  will  answer  the  question  put  as  to  the  effect  the 
chani'e  has  upon  donations  and  legacies.  How  far  the 
term  Convention  is  so  interlaced  and  interlocked  with 
State  legislation  that  it  cannot  be  changed  I  do  not  pre- 
tend to  say  or  know.  That  is  for  the  committee  to  in- 
vestigate— whoever  undertakes  that  labor  of  getting  up 
the  necessary  form  to  change  the  Constitution  and 
Prayer  Book. 

Mr.  Bartholow  : — Believing  this  learned  discus- 
sion has  satisfied  this  body  that  it  is  inexpedient  to  act 
upon  this  question,'!  move  the  whole  subject  be  laid 
upon  the  table. 

The  motion  was  lost. 

Dr.  Littlejohn — moved  to  indefinitely  postpone 
further  consideration  of  the  subject. 

The  President — decided  that  a  motion  of  indefinite 
postponement  allows  the  discussion  of  the  merits  of  the 
question. 

A  Message, — Number  1 1 ,  from  the  House  of  Bishops, 
announces  their  non-concurience  wilh   the  action  of  the 


44 


House  of  Deputies  as  communicated  by  their  message 
number  six,  and  asks  for  the  appointment  of  a  joint 
commission. 

Mr.  Welsh— claimed  the  right  to  the  floor,  and  that 
Dr.  Littlejohn's  resolution  of  indefinite  postponement 
-was  not  in  order,  as  he  did  not  yield  the  floor  to  him  for 
that  purpose.  The  latter  part  of  the  resolution,  which 
is  specific  I  think,  is  without  any  material  objection, 
though  I  would  prefer  that  the  whole  should  be  voted 
down.  It  is  changing  the  name  of  our  primary  meetings. 
What  possible  benefit  can  arise  from  it?  I  cannot  see 
any  advantage  in  changing  the  name.  I  call  for  a  di- 
vision of  the  subject. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead — I  am  opposed  on  principle  as 
well  as  expediency  to  this  appointment  of  joint  commit- 
tees on  questions  which  have  been  thoroughly  debated 
and  are  perfectly  understood  in  this  House  and  on  which 
I  presume  at  this  moment  every  member  is  prepared  to 
vote.  The  mingling  of  the  two  Houses  in  joint  Com- 
mittees has  had  a  bad  effect.  It  is  just  bringing  us  back 
to  the  original  condition  of  the  General  Convention, 
which  originally  consisted  of  one  House,  the  Bishops 
sitting  with  the  clerical  and  lay  Deputies,  and  voting 
with  them. 

Rev.  Dr.  Littlejohn  : — I  renew  the  motion  to  post- 
pone indefinitely.  I  do  it  not  with  the  view  of  stifling 
discussion  or  to  defeat  action  upon  it,  but  in  order  that 
it  may  take  the  course  it  ought  to  have  taken  from  the 
start,  to  relieve  us  of  this  whole  day's  debate.  I  there- 
fore renew  the  motion  to  postpone  indefinitely  the  reso- 
lutions which  are  before  the  House. 

The  vote  having  been  taken  by  ayes  and  noes,  and  a 
division  being  called  for,  a  tie  vote  was  the  result,  which 
was  settled  in  the  affirmative  by  the  vote  of  the  President . 
so  the  subject  was  indefinitely  postponed. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead — moved  that  a  Committee  of  Con- 
ference be  appointed  on  the  part  of  this  House 
on  the  subject  of  message  No.  11  from  the  House  of 
Bishops. 

The  motion  was  adopted,  and  also  a  motion  that  the 
committee  consist  of  three  clergymen  and  three  laymen. 

The  Secretary  read  a  communication  transmitting  the 
triennial  report  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  the  Gen- 
eral Theological  Seminary,  for  the  year  1868,  and  sub- 
mitting a  resolution  non-concurring  in  a  proposed  amend- 
ment of  the  Constitution  of  the  Seminary. 

The  financial  condition  of  the  Seminary  is  exhibited 

by  the  following  statement  from  the   above-mentioned 

report. 

Total  Assets  ....  $350,500 

Estimated  Expenses  fm  1868-9. 

"3,000 


Supplies        .  . 

Agent's  commission  and  expenses 


1,000 
300 
$12,650 


Taxes  and  assessments 

Repairs 

Insurance  and  printing 

Maintaining  Seminary — 
Scholarship  aud  prizes 
Professors?'  salaries 
.Janitor  and  assistant 
Librarian 


1,000 
650 


$2,300 

8,000 

900 

160 


IS4,650 


Total  expenses 

Estimated  Income  Same  Period. 
Rent  ....  $8,000 

Interest  .  .  .  ■  .  6,760 

Donations  ....  340 


in, 300 


15,100 

Estimated  deficiency  .  .  $2,200 

It  is  hoped  by  the  trustees  that  this  deficiency  will  be  met 
by  leasing  additional  lots.  The  number  of  students  at  the 
seminary  during  the  last  three  years  is  reported  by  the  trus- 
tees to  have  been  57  in  1866,  56  in  1867,  and  6.S  in  1868.  ' 

Rev.  Samuel  Clements,  of  Ohio, — introduced  a 
resolution  relating  to  canons  for  the  admission  of  candi- 
dates for  Holy  Orders,  and  asking  for  the  appointment 
of  a  committee  thereon. 

On  motion,  these  resolutions  were  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Canons. 

On  motion  of  Dr.  Haight,  the  report  of  the  Commit- 
tee on  Canons  as  to  Canon  12  Title  I.  was  made  the  or- 
der of  the  day  for  Friday. 

The  House  then  adjourned  to  10  o'clock  to-morrow 
morning. 

EIGHTH    DAY. 

Thursday,  Oct.  15,   1868. 

The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

Morning  Prayer  was  said  by  Rev.  Thomas  M.  Mar- 
tin of  Indiana,  and  Rev.  Thomas  C.  Pitkin,  D.  D.,  of 
Michigan.  The  Benediction  was  pronounced  by  Bish- 
op Kemper. 

The  journal  of  yesterday's  proceedings  was  read  and 
approved. 

Reports  of  Committeees  being  in  order,  Rev.  Dr.  Pit- 
kin reported,  from  the  Committee  on  New  Dioceses,  a 
preamble  and  resolution  concurring  with  the  action  of 
the  Hoiise  of  Bishops,  in  ratifying  the  organization  of^a 
new  diocese  within  the  limits  of  the  Diocese  of  Western 
New  York.     Adopted. 

The  Right  Rev.  the  Lord  Bishop  of  Fredericton,  Nova 
Scotia,  was  introduced  to  the  Convention,  and  assigned 
a  seat  by  the  President. 

Rev.  Dr.  Manney,  of  Minnesota,  reported  in  behalf 
of  the  Committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  canon  sub- 
dividing the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  into  several  provinces.  The  report  in  favor  of 
the  provincial  system  was  submitted  without  present 
action. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight,  of  the  Committee  of  Canons,  report- 
ed a  resolution  of  concurrence  with  the  House  of  Bish- 
ops as  to  amendment  of  section  2,  Canon  10,  Title  I. 
Adopted. 

A  report  from  the  same  Committee,  reporting  a  new 
canon  in  lieu  of  Canon  10,  title  1,  in  relation  to  election 
of  assistant  Bishops,  was,  by  motion  of  Dr.  Haight,  laid 
on  the  table  to  be  called  up. 

A  report  from   the  Committee  on  Canons,  in  refer- 


45 


ence  to  consecration  of  churches,  was  laid  upon  the  ta- 
ble and  ordered  to  be  printed. 

The  Committee  on  Conference  with  House  of  Bish- 
ops, on  the  subject  of  Church  Unity,  was  appointed  by 
the  President. 

Rev.  Dk.  M.vxnev  moved  that  the  resolution  on  the 
provincial  system  be  referred  to  a  special  committee  of 
five. 

An  amendment  to  print  having  been  withdrawn,  the 
report  was  so  referred. 

On  motion  of  Mu.  Soand,  of  South  Carolina,  the 
sessions  of  the  House  are  to  extend  from  10  A.  M.  to  3 
P.  M.,  without  reccs.s. 

Mk. offered  a  resolution  that  the  Commit- 
tee on  Canons  consider  a  propo.sed  amendment  to  Can- 
on 5,  Title  3,  namely,  by  adding  after  the  words,  "ec- 
clesiastical authority"  in  the  1-ith  line,  20th  paragraph, 
the  words  '•  consent  for  such  formation  or  establishment 
shall  be  considered  as  granted  unless  refused  within 
three  months  after  the  ecclesiastical  authority  has  been 
notified  of  the  intention  of  forming  any  such  parish." 
Referred. 

On  motion  of  Rev,  Dk.  Haiout,  the  Convention  pro- 
ceeded to  the  consideration  of  the  order  of  the  day — the 
report  of  the  Committee  on  Canons  in  reference  to  arti- 
cle 5  of  the  Constitution.  The  report  recommends  the 
article  read,  as  follows : 

A  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  any  of  the  United 
States,  or  any  territory  thereof,  not  now  represented,  may, 
at  any  time  liereafter  be  admitted  on  acceding  to  this  Con- 
stitution ;  and  a  new  Diocese,  to  be  formed  from  one  or 
more  existing  Dioceses,  may  be  admitted  under  the  following 
restrictions : — • 

No  new  Diocese  shall  be  formed  or  erected  within  the 
limits  of  any  other  Diocese,  uor  shall  any  Diocese  be  formed 
by  the  junction  of  two  or  more  Dioceses,  or  parts  of  Dio- 
ceses, unless  with  the  consent  of  the  Bishop  and  Conven- 
tion of  each  of  the  Dioceses  concerned,  as  well  as  of  the 
General  Convention,  and  such  consent  shall  not  be  given  by 
the  General  Convention  until  satisfactory  assurance  of  a 
suitable  provision  for  the  support  of  the  Episcopate  in  the 
contemplated  new  Diocese  shall  have  been  given  and  ac- 
cepted. 

No  city  shall  form  more  than  one  Diocese. 

In  ca.se  one  Diocese  .sliall  be  divided  into  two  or  more 
Dioceses,  the  Diocesan  of  the  Diocese  divided  may  elect  the 
one  to  which  he  will  be  attached,  and  shall  therupon  be- 
come the  Diocesan  tliereof,  and  the  Assistant  Bishop,  if 
there  be  one,  may  elect  the  oue  to  which  he  will  be  attached, 
and  if  it  be  not  the  one  elected  by  the  Bishop  he  .shall  be 
the  Diocesan  tliereof. 

Whenever  the  division  of  a  Diocese  into  two  or  more  Di- 
oceses shall  be  ratihed  by  the  General  Convention,  each  of 
the  Dioceses  shall  be  subject  to  the  Constitution  and  Can- 
ons of  the  Diocese  so  divided,  except  as  local  circumstances 
n^y  prevent,  until  the  same  may  be  altered  in  either  Uiocese 
bythe  Convention  thereof.  And  whenever  a  Diocese  shall 
be  formed  out  of  two  or  more  existing  Dioceses,  the  new 
Diocese  shall  be  subject  to  the  Constitution  and  Canons  of 
that  one  of  the  said  existing  Dioceses  to  which  the  greater 
number  of  clergymen  shall  have  belonged  prior  to  the  erec- 
tion of  such  new  Diocese,  until  the  same  may  be  altered  by 
the  Convention  of  tlie  new  Diocese. 

And  that  the  following  be  adopted  as  a  new  Canon,  to  be 
section  IV  of  Canon  0,  of  Title  III. 

No  new  Diocese  shall  be  formed  which  shall  contain  less 
than    =ix    Parishes,  or   less  than   ^ix    Presbyters,  who  have 


been  at  least  one  year  canonically  resident  within  the 
bounds  of  such  new  Uiocese,  and  regularly  settled  in  a  Par- 
ish or  congregation  tlieroin,  and  qualified  to  vote  for  a 
Bishop. 

Nor  shall  any  new  Diocese  be  formed  if  thereby  any  ex- 
isting Diocese  shall  be  reduced  so  as  to  contain  less  thiin 
thirty  Parishes,  or  less  than  twenty  Presbyters  who  have 
been  residing  and  settled  and  qualified  as  above  mentioned. 

Rev.  Dk.  Haigut  stated  the  principal  points  of  the 
report,  and  the  features  of  the  proposed  amendments, 
and  answered  various  inquiries  concerning  them.  He 
said :  The  Convention  will  observe  that  the  effect  of 
these  amendments  is  to  strike  out  all  the  existing  re- 
strictions in  ths  division  of  a  Diocese  except  that  which 
arises  from  the  necessity  of  the  consent  of  the  Bishop 
of  the  Dioce.se,  of  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese,  and  of 
the  General  Convention,  and  add  only  one  other  restric- 
tion, and  that  is,  that  "the  consent  of  the  General 
Convention  §hall  not  be  given  to  the  erection  of  a  new 
Diocese,  until  satisfactory  assurance  of  suitable  provi- 
sion for  the  support  of  the  Episcopate  in  the  new  Dio- 
cese shall  be  given  and  accepted." 

Mk.  Faikbanks,  of  Tennessee  moved  to  strike  out 
the  quoted  clause — as  inexpedient,  vague  and  impracti- 
cable. The  question  of  provision  for  their  Bishop 
ought  to  be  left  to  the  Diocese  to  be  divided. 

Rev.  Mk.  Hanckel,  of  South  Carolina: — I  should 
not  regret  to  strike  out  this  last  and  only  restriction 
which  is  left  by  the  Committee  on  Canons,  for  it  brings 
up  ex  necessitate  a  broader  question — namely,  shall  we 
allow  any  limitation  of  the  multiplication  of  Bishops  ? 
I  am  opposed  to  such  an  indefinite  multiplication  of 
Bishops,  and  upon  principle.  That  multiplication  has 
been  urged  by  its  strenuous  advocates.  The  theorj'  is 
that  the  Bishop  is  the  pastor  to  each  congregation,  and 
that  the  ultimate  responsibility  aud  authority  rests  in 
him.  This,  in  the  fir.st  place,  is  not  the  theory  of  our 
Church,  and  its  adoption  by  us  would  be  fatal  to  our 
whole  system  as  a  Church.  It  would  graduallj'  intro- 
duce among  us  a  system  of  presbyterianism  in  lieu  of 
Episcopacy,  and  the  Bishops  would  sink  to  the  grade  of 
presbyters,  and  the  three  orders  no  longer  be  found  in 
the  practical  administration  of  this  Church.  I  believe 
that  the  Presbyterians,  on  one  hand,  and  the  Method- 
ists, with  the  system  of  presiding  Elders,  on  the  other, 
will  take  off  their  hats  and  thank  these  advocates  of 
the  indefinite  multiplication  of-  the  Bishops.  If  you 
have  no  other  restriction  than  the  one  proposed  by  the 
Committee — a  pecuniary  restriction — what  is  the  direct 
effect  ?  Vast  districts  would  be  deprived  of  such  addi- 
tional Episcopal  service  as  they  may  imperatively  need, 
while  on  the  other  hand,  the  large-moneyed  centres  of 
the  country  will  have  it  in  their  power  to  multiply  indefi 
nitely  their  Bishops  upon  a  representation  to  this  body 
that  they  are  able  to  support  them ;  and  thus  a  few 
moneyed  centres  would  really  control  the  House  of 
Bishops.  The  ground  upon  which  the  multiplication 
of  Bishops  has  been  urged,  is  defeated  by  this  provision. 
I  contend  that  it  is  just  in  those  scattered  districts  dis- 


46 


tributed  over  large  areas,  without  the  facilities  of  inter- 
communication, that  we  need  additional  Bishops,  if  we 
need  them  anywhere ;  and  yet,  a  Bishop  may  come  be- 
fore this  Convention,  elected  by  his  Diocesan  Conven- 
tion, and  for  the  want  of  what  may  be  deemed  a  suita- 
ble support,  he  may  be  denied  his  Diocese,  and  his  Di- 
ocese be  deprived  of  his  almost  indispensable  services. 
I  ask,  sir,  whether  we  are  not  to  have  the  privilege  in 
our  day  of  apostolic  self-denial  and  devotion  as  well 
as  the  apostolic  order,  and  whether  it  may  not  be  possi- 
ble for  a  Bishop  with  limited  ideas  of  adequate  support 
to  come  here  and  say,  "  In  weariness,  in  hunger,  and 
almost  in  nakedness  I  am  willing  to  serve  this  Diocese 
to  which  I  have  been  called  in  the  providence  of  God," 
and  yet,  for  the  want  of  what  may  be  supposed  adequate 
support,  the  Diocese  may  be  refused  his  services,  and 
he,  his  work.  I  contend  that  this  proposed  restriction 
does  not  meet  the  case,  and  that  it  is  best  to  meet  it  by 
the  existing  provision  of  the  Canon,  where  the  number 
of  presbyters  and  the  area  to  be  traversed  make  up  two 
of  the  elements  to  be  considered.  Otherwise,  you  have 
a  Bishop  with,  according  to  this  Canon,  but  six  presby- 
ters and  six  parishes,  with  little  or  nothing  to  do.  No 
matter  how  restricted  the  area,  yet,  if  there  be  six  pres- 
byters and  six  parishes  they  may  claim  a  Bishop,  pro- 
vided they  are  rich  enough  to  support  him ;  and  where 
will  the  thing  end  ?  Multiply  miracles,  and  you  un- 
make miracles.  There  are  miracles  happening  every 
day,  as  in  the  rotation  of  the  earth  upon  its  axis  in  the 
orbital  movements  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  more  than 
were  ever  wrought  in  the  attestation  of  truth.  The 
stopping  of  the  sun  by  Joshua  is  cited  as  the  greatest  of 
all ;  yet,  the  going  forth  of  the  sun  on  its  daily  course 
is  a  vaster  and  perpetual  miracle.  Why  does  it  attract 
less  attention,  and  that  of  Joshua  greater  attention,  but 
that  the  one  wrought  by  Joshua  was  unusual.  Now, 
multiply  Bishops  and  you  unmake  Bishops;  you  lower 
the  dignit}'  of  the  office  ;  and  you  diminish  its  influ- 
ence; and  instead  of  these  wondrous  effects  which  we 
are  told  will  result  from  the  multiplication  of  Bishops 
you  will  find  you  have  shorn  yourself  of  your  strength; 
for  the  fact  that  the  Bishops'  visits  are  a  very  unusual 
thing  is  what  attracts  the  multitude  to  hear  him.  Make 
the  visit  a  matter  of  frequent  occurrence,  daily,  or  even 
once  in  three  months,  and  it  bcomes  an  ordinary  occur- 
rence and  his  influence  in  that  respect  is  gone. 

Rev.  Dr.  Howe,  of  Pennsylvania. — I  desire  to  utter 
one  word  of  explanation.  My  reverend  colleague  who 
presented  this  canon  to  the  House,  expressed  his  opin- 
ion as  to  what  constituted  support  of  the  Bishop  under 
the  provision, of  this  alteration  of  the  constitution,  and 
he  said,  as  his  own  opinion,  that  he  believed  that  it 
should  be  such  that  the  Bishop  need  not  engage  in 
keeping  a  school.  He  answered  also  the  question 
whether  the  Bishop  might  have  a  parish,  in  the  negative  ; 
but  that  was  barely  his  own  opinion.  The  terms  of  the 
Constitution  as  proposed  by  the  Committee  on   Canons, 


leave  it  entirely  in  the  hands  of  the  Convention  to  decide 
what  constitutes  an  adequate  support.  If  the  Bishop 
and  if  this  Convention  recognize  that  the  care  of  a  par- 
ish where  the  Bishop  is  maintained  is  sufficient  guaran- 
tee for  his  support  then  the  Diocese  may  be  divided 
under  the  terms  of  the  constitution  as  now  proposed.  I 
state  it  at  this  time  because  it  partially  answers  the 
objection  of  my  reverend  brother  of  South  Carolina. 

Rev.  Mr.  Hanckkl. — It  does  not  answer  it.  It  leaves 
to  the  Convention  the  decision  of  the  question  whether 
it  is  an  adequate  support. 

Rev.  Benjamin  Rogers,  of  Texas: — 1  am  from  a  Diocese 
more  deeply  interested  in  this  question  than  any  other 
represented  iu  tliis  Coiiventiou.  My  Diocese  has  acted,  and 
instructed  me  to  act  iu  this  matter ;  and  I  wish  to  submit 
an  amendment  to  the  Canon  as  reported  by  the  committee, 
and  then  give  my  reasons  for  the  introduction  of  this 
amendment.  "Amend  the  second  clause  of  article  as  pro- 
posed by  the  committee  by  striking  out  all  the  said  clause 
after  the  words  as  well  as"  etc. 

If  the  Convention  will  pardon  me  a  moment,  I  will  give 
some  of  my  reasons  for  this  action.  When  the  memorial 
from  the  State  of  Texas  was  read,  and  perhaps  the  Con- 
vention will  have  read  it  as  a  part  of  the  record,  it  appear- 
ed that  "the  Rev  Mr.  Rogers  then  offered"  etc.,  [reading 
from  the  memorial  from  the  Diocese  of  Texas].  This  [the 
resolution  of  the  Diocese  of  Texas]  covers  this  very  matter 
removing  restrictions  of  dioceses.  Mr.  President,  the 
Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Texas  knew  very  well  for  what;  he 
was  asking ;  and  the  Diocese  of  Texas  knows  very  well 
what  she  comes  here  to  ask.  She  is  too  modest  to  ask  for 
that  which  is  asked  for  by  a  thousand  trumpet  tongues,  she 
knows  that  she  stands  here  as  a  diocese  needing  above  all 
others  this  very  thing  to  be  done  for  lier.  Texas  has  more 
than  three  hundred  thousand  square  miles  of  territory. 
From  her  eastern  to  her  western  boundary,  starting  at  the 
river  on  this  side  and  going  to  the  river  on  the  other  side 
is  a  line  equal  to  a  line  from  the  city  of  Boston  to  the  east- 
ern line  of  the  State  of  Indiana,  and  yet  it  is  but  one  dio- 
cese. From  the  South  to  the  north,  starting  from  the  Rio 
Grande  and  going  up  to  the  Indian  Territory  is  a  line 
equal  to  one  starting  from  the  point  where  we  stand  to-day 
and  going  down  through  all  the  intervening  states  until 
you  reach  the  State  of  Florida;  and  yet  she  has  but  one 
Bishop.  Now  suppo.se  the  territory  extended  as  far  as  from 
Boston  to  Indiana  iu  one  direction  and  from  the  city  of 
New  York  to  Florida  on  the  other  constituting  with  its  twelve 
or  fifteen  parishes,  but  a  single  diocese.  Suppose  there  are 
stretching  along  from  end  to  end  several  great  rivers  that 
come  rushing  down,  rising  thirty  feet  in  a  night,  with  their 
hundreds  of  other  streams  only  smaller  than  they,  that  iii  a 
single  hour  come  in  from  the  hills  that  surround  thd^, 
rushing  so  wildly  that  horses  and  carriages,  men  and  all, 
and  stages  are  swept  away.  Now,  that  is  all  under  one 
Bishop,  and  he  is  compelled  to  travel  almost  constantly  to 
visit  his  parishes.  Now  suppose  that  there  are  but  twenty 
Presbyters  in  all  that  vast  territory ;  yet  there  are  127 
counties  each  county  of  which  is  larger  than  were  the  Sees 
of  ancient  Africa  or  Rome.  Yet  so  scattered  are  these 
twenty  Presbyters,  that,  starting   from   the  city   of  Austin 


47 


wherr  I  live  and  going  to  the  nefirest.  parish,  that  of  San 
ATitonio,  it  is  ninetv  miles.  If  I  come  down  from  the  east 
in  order  to  get  to  the  nearest  parish  in  that  direction,  it  is 
ainety  miles.  If  I  go  nsrth  to  tlie  nearest  parish  it  is  ninety 
miles.  Now  these  are  the  parishes  branching  from  her 
centre.  Do  you  think  we  need  no  aid  in  our  direction 't 
The  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  starts  in  the  fall  from  his  house 
— no  bridges  upon  the  river ;  and  no  railroads  upon  which 
to  travel  save  a  few  miles,  and  he  is  compelled  to  go  by 
stage,  because  it  hurries  bim  through  day  and  night  and 
otherwise  he  cannot  get  through  at  all — and  he  travels  for 
a  hundred  days  and  nights  before  he  can  rest  in  the  bosom 
of  his  family;  and  I  have  the  record  here  of  his  journey 
from  day  to  day  as  he  travels.  If  he  should  travel  with  his 
own  conveyance  he  could  make  but  half  the  circuit  in  half  a 
year.  When  he  has  traveled  that  one  hundred  days,  day 
and  night,  and  returns,  he  has  only  taken  the  northern  line 
form  the  centre  of  the  State.  When  Spring  comes  round, 
he  starts  for  another  hundred  day.s'  and  nights'  travels  and 
visits  before  he  can  return  to  his  family,  this  making  over 
four  hundred  days'  work  in  a  year.  The  last  time  I  saw 
him  he  had  been  riding  night  and  day  for  weeks ;  and  yet 
he  had  to  sit  down  and  work  in  my  study  during  the  time 
of  his  stay  there  that  he  might  bring  up  his  correspondence. 
Were  he  not  a  man  of  iron  constitution  he  could  not  endure 
it ;  aud  I  am  not  willing  to  see  my  Bishop  killed. 

Do  you  think  our  six  or  seven  hundred  thousand  souls 
need  no  shepherd?  Do  you  believe  that  through  all  that 
vast  territory  we  are  to  be  precluded  from  carrying  the 
.Church,  because  the  Bishop  can  only  hurry  from  point^to 
point  where  accidentally  a  Church  happens  to  be  upon  a 
stage-rout  by  which  he  must  travel  ?  He  cannot  stop  to  say 
a  fatherly  word  in  this  and  that  village,  because  the  stage 
moves  on  day  and  night,  and  he  cannot  otherwise  keep  his 
appointments.  Our  ministers  are  so  far  apart  that  we  have 
to  fold  ourselves  within  ourselve.s,  and  wait  for  what  the 
Lord  and  the"  Convention  shall  do  in  permitting  the  influ- 
ence to  go  out  beyond  our  parishes.  Yet  as  I  travel  over  the 
State — and  I  have  traveled  largely  in  my  time— I  find  there 
are  in  every  community  hearts  earnestly  yearning  for  the 
Church.  I  can  only  say  to  them  that  perhaps  the  Conven- 
tion will  give  it  them  some  time.  What  we  ask  is,  that  all 
restrictions  be  removed.  St.  Paul  never  asked  whether  he 
should  be  adequately  supported  when  he  crossed  the  (Jhan- 
nel  to  carry  the  Gospel  to  Britain.  There  are  thousands  of 
men  who  are  willing  to  go  with  the  same  spirit  as  St.  Paul.  It 
is  the  fatherly  hand  that  gathers  the  children  together  from 
•day  to  day.  It  is  this  fatherly  hand  that  should  be  permit- 
ted to  go  leisurely  along  from  town  to  town  and  from  vil- 
lage to  village,  and  gathi'r  the  few  churchmen  that  are  scat- 
tered all  over  the  countrv,  and  thev  would  bring  in  their 
neighbors;  and  thus  he  would  drop  down  parishes  like 
blessings  and  flowers  all  over  the  land  wherever  he  went. 
But  now  it  is  physically  impossible  that  the  one  Bishop 
should  do  this;  and  Te.xas  is  to-day  worse  off  in  soine  re- 
spects than  she  would  be  in  the  heart  of  Africa;  for,  if  she 
were  there,  you  would  send  to  her  missionaries  and  Bishops. 
But  now  that  she  is  a  Slate,  you  adopt  sui-h  cauons  as  pre- 
clude her  having  either.  Where  will  our  people  go  in 
such  a  condition  of  affairs?  It  is  to  Home,  who  is  drop|ii]i:; 
her    Bishops    all    over    that     countiy.     They     have     great 


churches,  and  great  schools,  and  their  women  and  mission: 
aries.  After  they  shall  have  gathered  in  our  children  and 
built  their  houses  of  worship ;  after  the  sects  shall  have  sem 
their  itinerating  men  all  over  the  country,  dropping  down 
their  school-ma'ms  here  and  there  aud  gather  up  all  belong- 
ing to  our  fold,  you  will  be  ready  to  act,  and  the  early  mis- 
sionaries of  the  church  will  be  dead ;  and  you  will  be  suf- 
ferers for  it.  I  have  had  very  .serious  experience  in  my 
time.  I  began  to  ask  that  they  miglit  simply  give  me  a 
si'hool  that  I  might  gather  in  the  children,  and  teach  them 
something,  that  we  might  have  a  Church  in  the  future. 
While  we  were  debating,  the  Church  of  Rome  came,  and 
they  are  doing  for  Rome  what  ought  to  have  been  done  for 
the  Church,  and  you  are  to  blame  for  it,  rather  than  I. 
What  I  ask  is,  that  we  shall  not  be  compelled  to  wait  "until 
we  have  thirty-six  parishes  and  thirty-six  clergymen.  We 
have  eighteen  parishes  now  ;  where  are  we  to  get  the 
others?  We  have  a  noble  man,  thank  God,  for  our  Bishop, 
but  he  cannot  do  the  work  of  a  thousand,  [The  speaker 
here  referred  to  a  memorial  from  South  Carolina  and  com- 
mented upon  its  reference  to  Texas,  to  the  effect  that  upon 
the  Episcopal  principles  of  Asia  Minor,  in  the  ancient 
Church,  Texas  would  have  8(iii  Bi.shops.]  If  we  were  to  act 
upon  the  principles  of  the  English  Church  we  ought  to  have 
150;  and  are  Texas  souls  not  worthy  to  be  saved  as  much 
as  those  in  Asia  Minor  ?  Besides  the  hundreds  of  thousands 
of  whites,  there  are  2(1(1,(10(1  blacks,  subject  to  the  control 
of  any  one  who  will  give  them  the  primer  and  Bible.  If 
you  will  give  me  a  school,  I  will  take  the  children,  and  if  I 
get  the  children,  I  have  got  the  generation ;  and  whoever 
educates  the  negroes  of  Texas,  has  them  soul  and  body, 
for  all  future  time;  and  yet  I  have  to  stand  still  and  wrap 
my  surplice  about  me,  and  wait  for  you  to  give  us  the  privi- 
lege of  acting  for  ourselves.  I  ask  you  to  answer  the  ear- 
nest entreaty  of  our  own  Bishop,  aud  give  us  such  a  right. 

Mr. .     I  have  the  deepest  sympathy  with  our 

brother  from  Texas.     I  am  glad  to  hear  such   earnest 
appeals   come  to  us  from   such  parts  of  the  country; 
but  I  cannot  agree  with  my  reverend   brother   in   the 
plan  which  he  has  projjosed  to  accomplish  his  object; 
nor  can  I  agree  with  the  proposition  made  by  tlie  Com- 
mittee on  Canons.     I  tliink  we  have  had  one  of  the  no- 
blest appeals  made  to  this  Church  for  the   increase   of 
our  Missionary  Bishops.     We  want  the  heai't   of  this 
Church  to  beat  responsive  to  the  needs  of  the  Church 
there.     But  we  have  a  system  which  has  been  tried,  and 
which  has  brought  forth  abundant  fruit.      Any  one  who 
has  attended  our  missionary  niee.tings  must   have   felt 
moved  by  the  great  and  noble  work   going    on    there. 
But  while  we  are  seeking  to  push  the    Church,  let    us 
also  remember  that  there  is  another  question.     We 
must  be  careful  that  we  do  not  break  down  the  truly 
conservative    element  of  the    Church — the    Diocesan 
Episcopate.     Our  Church   is  .-io  arranged  that  while  it 
uuiintains  its  position  with  firmness  and  stability,  cling- 
ing to  the  oracles  of  the  past,  still  it  opens  every  ave- 
nue Jo  meet  the  demands  of  the  present  and  the  future. 
What  we  want  is  an  increase  of  cm- missionary  Episco- 
pate.     Missionary  Bishops  are  sent  forth  with  the  (iod- 


48 


speed  of  the  Church  ;  we  feel  personally  responsible  to 
them  ;  we  feel  obliged  to  support  them.  Suppose  the 
Diocese  of  Texas  to  be  divided  into  a  number  of  dio- 
ceses, can  we  be  so  perfectly  sure  that  the  feeling  of  the 
Church  would  go  forth  with  the  same  directness  towards 
its  Bishops  who  are  there  selected  by  what  we  have 
every  reason  to  suppose  would  be  regular,  established 
churches,  as  it  would  go  forth  toward  our  missionary 
Bishops  sent  forth  by  us  ?  I  entirely  object  to  any  pe- 
cuniary restrictions  upon  which  the  extension  of  the 
Episcopacy  shall  depend.  Let  our  Bishops  go  forth  and 
labour,  denying  themselves. — I  also  do  object  to  the  in- 
definite division  of  our  existing  dioceses  and  reducing 
them  so  much  that  the  Episcopacy  shall  lose  that  dig- 
nity and  universal  respect  which  has  made  the  name  of 
our  venerable  Fathers,  as  they  come  down  to  us  from 
the  early  history  of  this  country,  names  honoured  and 
esteemed  by  the  whole  Church. 

Rev.  Mr.  Rogers  :  Under  this  canon  as  proposed, 
Texas  must  remain  with  one  Bishop  until  she  has  36 
parishes  and  36  presbj-ters. 

Judge  Otis  :  The  gentleman  confounds  the  proposed 
canon  and  the  proposed  amendment  to  the  constitution  ; 
we  took  some  restrictions  that  were  in  it  before  and 
placed  them  in  a  canon  ;  but  that  canon  cannot  be  act- 
ed upon  until  three  years  from  now. 

Rev.  Mr.  Rogers  :  I  have  not  misunderstood  the 
gentleman.  I  understood  that  what  we  initiate  here  is 
simply  to  be  put  in  shape  for  action  three  years  hence. 
I  do  not  propose  a  change  of  the  canon.  I  have  pro- 
posed my  amendment  as  a  substitute,  to  some  extent, 
of  the  second  clause  of  the  article  as  proposed  by  the 
committee,  and  because  what  they  propose  does  not 
meet  the  wants  of  Texas.  A  gentleman  has  said  we 
want  Missionary  Bishops  ;  but  according  to  the  pro- 
posed canon  and  constitution  we  cannot  have  them. 
We  are  inside  of  a  State  organization.  In  order  to  get 
what  we  wish,  I  would  be  willing  to  blot  out  the  State 
organization  to  some  extent,  and  to  throw  it  into  a  ter- 
ritory, to  get  the  needed  bishops,  but  I  cannot ;  where- 
as in  the  Indian  territory  they  can  elect  a  bishop,  with 
only  six  presbyters.  I  think  we  should  be  no  worse  for 
being  on  the  south  side  of  the  dividing  line.  Do  not 
compel  a  State  to  go  without  the  Church,  when  you  are 
givin"'  it  to  the  Territories  and  to  the  heathen  world. 

Gov.  Fish  :  The  most  of  what  I  proposed  to  say  has 
been  anticipated  by  gentlemen  who  have  had  the  floor 
since  I  flr.st  endeavom-ed  to  obtain  it.  There  is,  how- 
ever, a  consideration  which  I  will  endeavour  to  present, 
which  operated  with  the  Committee  on  Canons  in  in- 
ducing them  to  report  this  amendment.  Their  atten- 
tion was  drawn  to  it,  as  the  Convention  will  remember, 
by  the  presentation,  in  the  first  instance,  of  a  memorial 
from  Wisconsin,  [read  by  Dr.  Adams]  and  followed  up 
by  others,  complaining  of  restriction  in  the  fifth  Ai^icle 
of  the  Constitution  against  the  creation  of  new  dioceses. 
The  question  before  the  House  now,  I  suppose,  is  that 


of  the  gentleman  from  Tennessee  to  strike  out ;  but  I 
would  submit  to  him  and  the  Chair  that  that  is  not  a 
proper  proposition  to  adopt.  The  immediate  question 
before  the  House  was  the  insertion  at  the  end  of  the 
second  clause  of  the  fifth  Article,  of  the  words  "  and 
such  consent  shall  not  be  given  by  the  General  Conven- 
tion until  satisfactory  assurances  of  suitable  provision  for 
the  support  of  the  Episcopate  in  the  new  diocese  shall 
have  been  given  and  accepted."  There  were  two  ques- 
tions to  be  considered.  One  was  the  necessity  of  di- 
ocesan Episcopates,  the  increase  of  Episcopates,  though 
there  was  the  danger  of  too  great  an  increase.  There 
was  the  danger  of  the  creation  of  an  Episcopate  where 
there  would  be  no  adequate  support,  and  where  possi- 
bly in  a  short  time  thei'e  might  be  no  population  to  re- 
ceive the  Bishop.  Experience  in  some  parts  of  the  coun- 
try has  shown  us  that  parishes  may  be  created  to-day  and 
pass  away  to-morrow.  Js  it  safe  for  the  Church  to  al- 
low six  parishes,  created  possibly  under  such  circum- 
stances as  we  have  seen  every  month,  and  created 
sometimes  for  purposes  I  would  rather  not  refer  to — is 
it  safe,  I  ask,  to  allow  the  creation  of  new  dioceses  and 
the  election  and  consecration  of  new  Bishops  to  be  ef- 
fected thus  loosely  ?  We  thought  not.  We  believe  the 
Church  thought  so.  We  did  not  believe  that  this  Con- 
vention would  sanction  any  such  principle  of  laxity  as 
that. 

It  was,  however,  of  the  utmost  importance  that  the 
growing  dioceses  of  the  West  should  be  relieved  from 
the  restriction  that  the  present  article  of  the  Constitu- 
tion put  upon  them.  We  wanted  to  give  the  Episco- 
pate to  a  smaller  number  of  parishes,  and  therefore  the 
word  "  self-supporting"  was  stricken  out ;  but  if  we  do 
away  with  that  provision,  and  wish  to  retain  some  rea- 
sonable and  safe  supervision  of  the  formation  of  new 
dioceses,  how  can  that  be  better  done  than  by  giving  an 
Episcopate  to  any  moderate  number  of  parishes  where 
support  is  guaranteed  '.•'  The  Committee  approached 
thai  carefully,  and  we  think  wisely,  in  the  provision 
recommending  that  such  consent  shall  not  be  given  by 
the  General  Convention  until  satisfactory  assurances  of 
su])port  of  the  Episcopate  have  been  given.  And  in 
every  particular  case  the  Convention  will  judge  how 
much  is  necessary.  They  attempt  to  fix  no  standard 
foi-  the  support.  What  is  necessary  in  one  diocese  is 
much  more  than  necessary  in  another.  Can  we  not 
trust  our  successors  in  the  General  Convention  to  give 
a  judgment  upon  that?  Do  we  believe  that  all  the  wis- 
dom, that  all  the  conservatism,  that  all  the  love  for  the 
growth  of  the  Church,  is  to  be  dispersed  and  abandon- 
ed, the  moment  this  Convention  rises  '?  I  believe  that 
the  next  Convention  will  bring  the  same  conservatism 
and  the  same  love  of  the  Church  and  the  same  desire 
Ibi-  its  progress  as  ever.  It  has  been  asked  how  other- 
wise than  by  an  endowment  can  an  adequate  support 
lie  guaranteed.  There  are  many  other  modes.  I  will 
suggest  one  which  has  been  in  my  contemplation  fr  m 


49 


the  beginning,  and  which  wo  employ  constnntly  in  rais- 
ing funds  for  missionary  purposes.  Now  what  is  to 
prevent  the  State  of  Texas,  State  though  she  be,  from 
setting  apart  a  new  diocese  there,  and  the  Missionary 
Societ}'  of  this  Church  assuming  the  payment  of  one  or 
more  hundred  dollars,  in  order  to  assure  a  satisfactor}- 
support  to  the  Bishop  ?  And  then  tlie  Convention  in 
Texas  at  once  creates  a  diocese  and  elects  a  Bishop. 
There  is  no  necessity  for  any  endowment.  You  have 
here  a  question  of  organization,  of  raising  and  expend- 
ing money  for  missionary  purposes,  and  where  can  they 
do  it  better  than  precisely  in  that  Held  V  In  this  way 
you  combine  missionary  eftbrt  with  <liocesan  organiza- 
tion. The  support  lor  the  Episcopate  is  passed  iijion 
by  the  Convention,  and  you  prevent  the  creation  of  too 
many  dioceses ;  you  restrain  to  some  extent  the  in- 
crease of  dioceses  and  Episcopates,  but  }'0U  provide  tor 
it  wherever  it  is  necessary.  That  is  the  object  and  the 
whole  extent  of  that  limitation  in  the  Constitution. 
We  sti'ike  out  that  number  of  self-supporting  parishes, 
but  to  retain  some  hold  we  make  this  provision,  which 
seems  to  be  entirely  safe. 

Now  as  to  the  question  raised  by  the  Rev.  gentleman 
fromTexas,  in  words  and  manner  which  will  not  be  for- 
gotten when  this  Convention  ceases  to  hold  its  sessions. 
He  tells  us,  and  justly,  that  under  the  proposed  Cdnon, 
Texas  cannot  be  divided  with  her  present  number  of 
twenty-four  to  thirty  parishes.  We  have  not  yet  acted 
upon  that  limitation  of  number.  But  when  we  come  to 
do  so  those  numbers  can  be  reduced  and  I  premise  they 
will  without  hesitation  be  reduced.  [Upon  the  assur- 
ance that  this  would  be  done,  Rev.  Mr.  Rogers  said  he 
would  withdraw  his  amendment.]  The  Committee  have 
recommended  six  parishes  for  the  new  Diocese  to  be  set 
off ;  because  the  Canon  to  be  amended  requires  six,  we 
took  this  number  ;  not  because  of  any  attachment  to  it 
but  for  the  sake  of  conformity  ;  and  with  regard  to  the 
number  of  parishes  to  be  left  in  the  old  Diocese,  we  took 
the  number  in  the  cOHstitutional  requirement,  not  be- 
cause we  had  any  particular  attachment  to  that  number, 
but  because  it  is  there.  When  that  particular  Canon 
comes  up  for  consideration  we  can  make  the  number  suit 
the  Rev.  gentleman  from  Texas  and  satisfy  the  Conven- 
tion. For  one  I  am  ready  to  take  any  number,  but 
we  should  hold  a  certain  restraint  in  this  body  over  the 
creation  of  Dioceses.  We  allow  this  case  of  Te.xas  to  be 
provided  tor  and  our  Missionary  society  can  find  no  bet- 
ter field  than  that  for  the  expenditure  of  its  funds ; 
and  I  undertake  to  say  that  the  State  of  Texas,  State 
though  she  be,  under  the  operation  of  the  Missionary 
society,  and  by  its  co-operation  would  secure  an  increase 
of  Diocesan  Bishops;  and  this  provision  of  the  Constitu- 
tion now  proposed  will  enable  the  Missionary  society  to 
furnish  the  guarantees  for  the  formation  of  those  new 
Dioceses. 

Rev.  Dk.  Andrews  : — I   have   a  resolution  which  I 
will  submit,  and    which  I  think  will  meet  the  views  of 

7 


the  delegate  from  Texas,  and  also  the  views  of  the  ijen- 
tleman  from  New  York  (Gov.  Fish).  But  before  I  read 
this,  I  will  make  some  general  remarks  upon  tlie  subject. 
When  I  heard  the  memorials  as  they  came  in  a  few  days 
ago  [understood  to  be  the  memorials  in  favor  of  the 
Provincial  system],  followed  as  it  was  bv  the  report,  I  was 
reminded  of  the  celebrated  speech  of  the  great  statesman 
of  Kentucky,  which  I  heard  thirty  years  ago,  the  open- 
ing sentence  of  which  is  so  well  remembered  to  this  day. 
Nor  do  I  consider  it  as  comparing  small  things  with  great, 
when  I  say  that  the  condition  of  the  Church  at  this 
time  is  similar  to  what  he  conceived  to  be  the  condi- 
tion of  the  Republic  Men.  And  if  ever  I  coveted  that 
effective  capacity  for  debate  which  Providence  has  de- 
nied me,  it  was  when  I  heard  the  report  on  the  Provin- 
cial system  just  read.  As  we  are  constantly  referred  to 
the  example  of  antiquity  for  this  indefinite  diminution 
of  Dioceses,  I  beg  to  make  are-statement  of  the  facts 
so  far  as  they  hear  upon  the  question  before  us.  Dio- 
ceses anciently  corresponded  to  civil  divisions  of  the 
State :  but  under  the  emjjerors,  thirteen  of  them  em- 
braced the  whole  Roman  world,  with  a  population  of 
one  hundred  and  sixty  millions.  When  the  Church 
came  into  the  field,  where  she  came  with  Divine  author- 
ily,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  the  Dioceses  conformed  to 
civil  divisions.  The  sees  were  large  and  as  compared 
with  the  system  now  proposed,  very  large ;  but  this 
scheme  of  conformity  to  civil  divisions  continued  until 
every  city  which  had  a  civil  magistrate  and  a  local  senate 
demanded  a  Bishop ;  and  hence  it  was  that  the  sees  were 
of  various  sizes,  depending  upon  the  extent  of  the  juris- 
diction of  the  civil  magistrate.  Hence  we  are  told  that  the 
sees  of  Carthage  contained  five  hundred  clergy,  while 
the  sees  about  Rome  scarcely  contained  a  dozen;  so  that 
we  have  examples  in  antiquity  of  all  kinds — for  large  di- 
oceses as  well  as  small.  But  there  can  be  no  question 
that  the  division  went  on  until  it  furnished  the  most 
plausible  objection  against  Episcopacy  itself  See  and /lar- 
ish  are  claimed  by  Presbyterians  to  have  been  the  same 
thing.  By  the  close  of  the  Iburth  century  we  find  a  cat- 
alogue of  nearly  two  thousand  sees.  The  Episcopacy  of 
the  apostolic  age  had  been  changed.  The  sees  were 
reduced  to  such  insignificancy  that  some  remedy  was 
demanded  ;  and  the  sees  were  consolidated  and  put  under 
the  supervision  of  metropolitans.  These  metropolitans 
were  one  hundred  and  twenty,  and  over  these  were 
placed  subsequently,  the  Bishops  of  the  principal  cities 
of  civil  Dioceses  in  which  such  provinces  were  contained, 
under  the  name  of  patriarchs,  so  the  civil  Dioceses  and 
provinces  became  ecclesiastical  Dioceses  and  provinces. 
After  all  this  it  was  deemed  expedient — for  the  power 
grew  by  degrees — in  the  seventh  century  to  place  the 
Bishop  in  the  principal  city  of  the  empire  ;  and  he  reign- 
ed there  as  the  Caesar  of  the  Church.  In  this  process 
the  first  step  was  the  reduction  of  Dioceses,  and  by 
degrees  there  came  to  be  a  consolidation  of  power  which 
deprived  the   people  of  the  last   vestige  of  liberty  with 


50 


wbich  God  had  endowed  them,  in3titutin<;  a  system  un- 
der which  the  individual  was  uothingand  the  State  every- 
thing— in  whicli  everything  was  borne  down  by  the  all- 
crushing,  remorseless  State.  Such,  sir,  in  its  bearings 
upon  this  question,  are  the  real  teachings  of  antiqnity. 
We  are  left  to  exercise  discriminating  judgment  upon  the 
past  and  common  sense  as  to  the  present.  A  Diocese 
may  be  too  large  or  too  small.  We  have  a  minimum  and 
we  have  a  maximum  in  the  constitutional  provision  that 
the  Bishop  shall  be  required  to  visit  every  Parish  once 
in  three  years.  The  Diocese  of  Pennsylvania,  now 
claiming  another  division,  has  but  one  hundred  and 
fifty  parishes,  and  Maryland,  which  we  have  just  divided, 
had,  all-told,  but  ninety  rectors.  Take  the  maximum  to 
be  one  hundred  and  fifty,  and  the  minimum  to  be  fifteen 
and  the  average  would  be  abuut  eighty  ;  which  would 
allow  the  Bishops  to  visit  every  parish  every  year,  to 
stay  two  days  in  each,  to  have  seventy-five  days  for 
travel,  and  four  months  for  rest  and  study  ;  and  surely 
no  Bishop  wants  more  than  that  for  rest  and  study  ;  and 
surely  no  parish  requires  more  protracted  and  frequent 
visits  than  this,  and  as  for  any  official  purposes  it  is 
twice  as  much  as  they  require ;  and  as  to  those  more 
protracted  visitations,  the  fond  notions  that  so'many  seem 
to  entertain  on  this  subject  have  never  been  realized  and 
never  will  be. 

No  theory  was  ever  so  thoroughly  exploded,  and  yet 
none  was  ever  so  persistently  entertained.  As  to 
the  philosophy,  what  is  it  that  gives  such  superior  influ- 
ence to  Episcopal  presence  and  counsel  ?  Is  it  the  su- 
perior talents  of  the  Bishop  ?  Not  necessarily.  Is  it 
his  superior  piety  ?  Not  necessarily.  Is  it  the  convic- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  people  that  he  acts  under  Di- 
vine authority?  So  does  the  Presbyter.  No,  Sir,  never. 
It  is  the  jurisdiction.  It  is  the  office,  and  the  influence 
of  that  office  will  be  in  proportion  to  the  singularity  of 
its  functions  and  to  the  size  and  importance  of  territory 
over  which  it  extends.  Suppose  the  Bishop  visits  each 
parish  every  month  or  every  three  months.  He  will  on- 
ly divide  his  power  with  the  rector  and  we  shall  have 
gained  nothing.  This  is  a  power  which  ought  not  to  be 
trifled  with.  But  it  is  trifled  with  by  the  proposed 
canon ;  nay,  it  is  destroyed.  It  has  already  been  re- 
marked that  we  are  Presbyterianizing  the  Church,  and 
reducing  the  Episcopate  to  the  office  of  moderator,  and 
yet  I  sympathize  with  those  who  desire  this  multiplica- 
tion of  Bishops.  I  do  not  believe  that  ambition  has  a 
great  deal  to  do  with  it.  It  may  affect  some  minds 
among  the  clergy,  but  not  many ;  as  to  the  laity,  they 
desire  nothing  but  to  build  up  the  Church.  As  to  the 
facts  of  the  theory,  the  experiment  has  been  made  too 
often  and  with  too  marked  effects  to  be  doubted.  The 
facts  are  as  much  against  the  theory  as  philosophy.  Look 
at  Kansas,  which  reported  one  hundred  and  seventy-one 
communicants  at  the  last  General  Convention.  Look  at 
Delaware,  with  a  good  and  able  man  as  Bishop  for 
twenty  years.     Yet  she  reported  fewer  parishes  in  1865 


than  in  1863,  some  sixteen  or  eighteen  in  all.  I  do  not 
believe  that  any  one  parish  in  that  Diocese  has  grown 
beyond  what  it  would  have  grown  had  it  continued  a 
constituent  Diocese  of  Pennsylvania.  Look  at  Florida. 
It  has  had  a  Bishop  for  many  years  and  they  now  report 
in  Florida  three  rectors.  So  in  Arkansas,  where  they 
have  had  a  Bishop  so  many  years,  we  have  one  rector 
(and  he  is  the  Bishop  and  reported  as  officiating). 
As  to  the  cases  which  have  been  cited  of  these  new  mis- 
sionary Bishops,  I  think  some  provision  should  be  made 
for  cases  where  population  is  mainly  confined  to  the  lines 
of  great  railroads,  and  where  towns  spring  up,  almost  in 
a  night.  There  ought,  no  doubt,  to  be  Bishops  there. 
But  what  are  the  facts  with  regard  to  these  old  dioceses  ? 
Is  it  possible  for  any  man,  if  he  will  open  his  eyes,  to  fail 
to  see  the  facts  of  the  case  as  they  now  stand  ?  If  you  in- 
quire whether  a  Bishop's  missionary  labors  or  influence 
as  Rector  of  a  parish  will  be  enlarged,  the  facts  warrant 
no  such  conclusion.  We  have  Bishops  as  Rectors  of 
parishes;  are  they  found  to  grow  more  rapidly  than 
others  ?  Nobody  ought  to  expect  it.  So  likewise  in 
towns  where  the  Bishop  resides,  is  the  Church  found 
growing  more  rapidly  than  in  other  places  ?  It  does 
not,  and  it  is  not  reasonable  to  expect  it.  It  is  a  nice 
thing  to  talk  of  a  Bishop  coming  into  a  parish  every  few 
weeks  and  inquiring  of  the  minister  about  the  vestry,  and 
of  the  vestry  about  the  minister,  and  of  both  about  the 
people,  and  of  the  people  about  both.  A  Bishop  might  per- 
form one  such  visitation  but  never  a  second.  It  is  said  in 
this  pamphlet  [reads  as  to  the  "  paternal  influence  of  a 
Bishop,"  his  being  the  ''father  of  his  Diocese,"  "living  and 
moving  daily  among  his  people"].  I  would  ask  the  Chair- 
man do  you  profess  to  have  such  a  supervision  as  that 
over  your  parish,  or  have  the  pastors  of  great  churches  in 
this  city  ?  They"  do  not  and  they  cannot.  I  confess  for 
one  I  do  not  desire  it  of  the  Bishop.  I  never  heard  of  its 
being  attempted  but  once.  That  was  not  in  a  small  par- 
ish but  in  a  large  one  and  met  with  no  encouragement ; 
but  it  was  thought  a  wonderful  tljing  that  the  Bishop  was 
coming  to  make  the  personal  acquaintance  of  every  one  in 
the  parish.  It  was  attempted ;  after  the  service  all 
came  up  to  be  introduced — not  only  colonels,  majors, 
and  Esquires,  but  especially  the  poor  Uncle  Jack  and 
Aunt  Susan ;  (I  give  the  naraes^  and  these  were  taken 
by  the  hand  and  shaken  cordially.  But  afterward  the 
people  began  to  ask  themselves  how  much  there  was  of 
reality  in  all  this ;  not  a  natural  sentiment  was  expressed 
on  either  side ;  and  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that  afterward 
these  things  were  left  to  regulate  themselves.  So  as  to 
the  clergy — they  came  to  shrink  from  such  an  inspec- 
tion, and  I  confess  for  one  I  do  not  desire  such  an  in- 
spection. I  do  not  bejieve  there  is  one  who  does,  how- 
ever he  may  draw  these  pictures  in  pamphlets.  This 
domiciliary  inspection  was  looked  forward  to  as  a  visita- 
tion in  more  senses  than  one  (laughter).  But  it  is  said 
that  the  Bishop  ought  to  render  some  service  to  the 
minister  more  than  his  professional  duties,  but  how  ? 


51 


The  Rector  ought  always  to  be  master  of  the  situation. 
Ordinarily  he  is  so  ;  but  if  he  is  not  it  is  seldom  in  the 
power  of  the  Bishop  to  make  him  so.  The  idea  of  a 
Bishop  in  this  age  is  not  realized  under  the  idea  of  a 
father  among  his  children,  but  as  that  of  a  man  among 
men.  He  operates  by  character  as  well  as  by  office — 
by  his  reputation  for  sincerity  and  for  piety — and  by 
reputation  foi  wisdom,  enterprise  and  success.  A  dio- 
^se  should  never  be  so  large  but  that  a  Bishop  may  e.x- 
ercise  these  qualities  in  behalf  of  the  parish  where  he 
may  chance  to  be.  And  where  he  finds  the  rector  has 
peculiar  difficulties  to  contend  with  he  uses  the  whole 
weight  of  his  character  official  and  personal  to  hold  up 
the  rector's  hands.  [Reads  from  the  pamphlet].  But, 
alas,  Sir,  I  cannot  but  notice  the  signs  of  the  times;  and 
if  I  do  not  misinterpret  them,  the  Bishops  are  all  to  be 
supported  with  ample  funds.  I  fear  we  shall  have  Bish- 
ops in  foreign  parts.  Bishops  by  the  seaside,  Bishops 
among  the  mountains.  Bishops  here  in  New  York.  And 
if  not  supported,  there  is  a  great  probability  that  we  shall 
have  a  multitude  of  Bishops  without  Episcopal  occupa- 
tions, without  the  means  of  subsistence,  and  without  re- 
spect in  so  much  that  a  wealthy  lay  friend  would  take 
the  opposite  side  of  the  street. 

One  word  as  to  the  drift  of  the  resolutions.  I  am 
safisficd  it  is  not  fully  perceived.  What  is  it  ?  First, 
small  dioceses.  I  was  astonished  when  I  heard  the 
principle  admitted — they  are  not  so  large  as  Scottish 
classes.  What  was  at  first  hinted  is  now  completely 
announced — Metropolitans;  the  dioceses  in  a  State 
gathered  into  one  government  and  with  a  Metropolitan, 
under  which  system  the  Bishop  of  Philadelphia  would 
be  a  greater  man  than  now,  and  the  Bishop  of  Pittsburg 
a  much  le.ss  one.  This  is  the  first  stage  of  the  Provin- 
cial system  of  which  we  have  heard  so  much  and  know 
so  little.  Then  we  may  be  absolutely  sure  of  the  second 
and  third  instalments  asked  for  in  the  report.  We  shall 
have,  not  the  primate  pictured  in  that  rcpoit,  but  a 
very  different  one.  We  have  been  told  that  with  this 
system  we  shall  be  alile  to  have  our  own  way  ;  but  we 
shall  find  the  little  finger  of  the  primate  thicker  than 
the  local  Bishop's  loins.  It  is  well  that  we  know  this, 
and  that  we  can  look  before  we  take  this  enormous  leap, 
which  will  l)e  a  leap  in  the  dark  for  the  majority  of  the 
Churdi.  It  is  .said  that  this  system  did  not  advance  in 
the  last  (ieneral  Convention  as  much  as  was  expected. 
Others  said  that  it  was  no  more  than  we  had  expected, 
because  the  Church  had  not  been  educated  up  to  this 
thing.  Sir,  I  am.  jealous  of  the  being  educated  up  to 
any  system  that  is  not  declared  in  all  its  parts  at  the 
beginning.  We  have  men  educiited  in  various  ways 
up  to  believing  th;it  to  be  lawful  which  they  once 
thought  to  be  unlawful,  and  believing  that  right  which 
once  the  Gospel  and  every  moral  sentiment  told  them 
wa.s  wrong.  The  system  is  recommended  as  preventing 
the  necessity  of  a.ssistaiit-Bishops,  but  the  more  you 
multiply  the  Bishops  the  more  you  increase  tlie  liability, 
unless  you  provide  that  the  Bishops  shall  die  suddenly, 


without  previous  infirmity  or  decay.  The  resolution  1 
propose  is  this :  as  a  substitute,  T  move  that  the  whole 
matter  be  recommitted  with  a  resolution  providing  for 
increased  Episcopal  service  in  the  Diocese  of  Texas. 

Mu.  Faiuh.vnks;  — The  proposition  is  out  of  order, 
my  motion  being  to  strike  out. 

The  Presidknt  decided  the  motion  to  recommit  to  be 
in  order. 

Mr. : — I  do  not  see  how  the  resolution  can 

be  a  substitute  for  the  proposition  under  consideration. 
The  substitute  is  in  regard  to  the  election  of  Bishops, 
a  wholly  different  subject,  and  is  provided  for  in  another 
aiticle  of  the  Constitution.  It  cannot  be  admitted  as  a 
substitute. 

The  President  : — I  suppose  the  motion  to  recommit 
is  in  order,  but  without  the  instruction.  [To  the  Com- 
mittee.] 

Mr.  «Cteorge  A.Gordon,  of  Alabama: — The  debate 
upon  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Canons  has  taken 
so  wide  a  range  this  morning  that  it  is  with  dilHculty 
that  I  can  catch  precisely  the  points  at  issue  before  the 
House,  and  yet,  the  main  proposition  discussed  is  one  of 
such  deep  interest  to  me  that  whether  they  were  strictly 
germane  to  the  particular  point  at  issue  or  not,  I  was 
very  glad  to  listen  to  the  arguments,  upon  one  side  or 
the  other ;  and  I  desire,  upon  tliat  point,  also,  to  be 
heard  in  a  few  remarks.  If  I  know  myself,  I  certainly 
would  not  engage  in  an)'  project  which  would  look  like 
revolution.  Like  the  learned  gentleman  who  last  took 
his  seat,  I  am  afraid  of  revolutmn.  I  have  been  taught 
to  be  afraid  of  revolution.  I  never  have  been  in  favor 
of  it  in  the  Church,  but  in  neither  Church  nor  State  am 
I  ever  again  in  favor  of  revolution.  In  all  matters  of 
the  Church  I  shall  shrink  from  anything  approaching  a 
difference  from  the  established  order  or  law  in  the 
Church.  But  I  deny  the  proposition,  with  all  deference 
to  the  learned  Deputy  from  Virginia,  that  a  return  to 
apostolic  order  is  revolution.  The}'  are  two  distinct 
propositions :  one  is  subveision,  and  the  other  is  a  re- 
turn to  order.  And  is  it  too  much  for  us  to  say  that 
there  have  been  errors  in  the  American  Church  '!  Is 
that  the  only  Church  organization  in  the  world  that  has 
been  free  from  error?  It  has  comparatively  a  new  con- 
stitution; there  have  been,  from  time  to  time,  new  con- 
stitutions framed;  new  branches  of  the  constitution  have 
been  placed  in  the  old  one,  and  new  canons  enacted.  We 
certandy  have  not  reached  perfection  to-day.  There 
fore,  if,  by  the  enlightened  wisdom  of  experience,  study 
and  increase  of  knowledge,  we  are  enabled  to  arrive  at 
the  fact  that  by  a  return  to  first  principles  we  are  bring- 
ing back  tlie  Cluirch  to  apostolic  usage,  call  it  not  revo- 
lution, but  a  return  to  ordei-.  1  think  there  can  be  no 
one  in  this  House  who  listened  to  the  stirring  tones  ol 
the  Deputy  from  Texas  but  was  impressed  with  the  vital 
necessity  for  aid  in  that  direction.  There  is  no  doulit 
about  the  fact  that  assistance  ought  to  be  accorded  lo 
tlie  Cliureh  in  Texas.  I  am  satisfied  that  no  one  who 
has  listened  to  the  report  of  the  action  of  the  Hisliop  in 


62 


Nebraska  was  not  satisfied  that  the  action  taken 
by  the  last  General  Convention  in  sending  forth  a  Bish- 
op into  that  vast  field  has  been  one  of  the  main  causes 
in  producing  the  glorious  results  reported.  There  can 
be  no  doubt,  then,  that  some  remedy  is  needed  for  a 
deficiency  which  confessedly  exists.  AVhether  the 
remed}'  reported  by  the  Committee  on  Canons  is  ade- 
quate or  not,  some  remedy  is  necessary. 

The  Church  has  a  responsibility  upon  it;  and  she 
cannot  shrink  from  it;  it  must  be  assumed  ;  and  that  we 
shall  be  called  upon  to  answer  bctbre  God  for  the  re- 
sponsibility resting  upon  us  this  day,  I  firmly  believe. 
Now,  it  is  not  revolution  to  say  what  I  have  said,  that, 
though  called  revolution,  1  am  in  favor  of  multiplication 
of  Episcopates.  I  am  not  afraid  of  the  various  objec- 
tions which  have  been  stated  by  the  distinguished  gen- 
tlemen who  have  spoken  on  the  other  side.  The  learn- 
ed deputy  from  Virginia,  who  gave  us  a  very  interesting 
history  of  the  early  Church,  forgot  to  call  the  attention 
of  this  Convention  to  the  different  set  of  circumstances 
then  and  now.  One  of  the  sti-ongest  points  urged  by 
him,  after  having  stated  succinctly  and  beautitully  the 
history  of  the  early  church,  was,  that  there  were,  at  one 
time,  two  thousand  Bishops  in  the  Church — a  larger 
number  than  now  exists  in  the  Episcopate  anywhere. 
And  that  was  urged  as  a  reason  why  we  should  not  bring 
the  Episcopate  into  disrepute  by  increasing  the  number 
of  Bishops.  He  said  one  of  the  strongest  arguments 
used  against  Episcdpacy  by  the  Presbyterians  and 
Methodists,  was,  that  at  the  end  of  the  fourth  century 
there  were  two  thousand  Bishops  in  the  Church.  That 
was  one  of  the  arguments  to  prove  that  we  ought  not  to 
have  two  thousand  Bishops  now.  That  was  an  argu- 
ment to  prove  that  Methodists  and  Presbyterians  might 
successfully  attack  us  at  that  juncture.  [Rev.  Dr.  An- 
drews : — I  said  it  furnished  a  plausible  argument.]  I 
know  the  gentleman  did  not  intend  himself  to  use  the 
argument.  I  understood  him  that  it  was  only  a  plausi- 
ble argument  used  by  Presbyterians  and  Methodists.  I 
do  not  care  what  Presbyterians  and  Methodists  say,  I 
am  not  in  the  habit  of  consulting  them,  or  being  moved 
by  their  opinions.  Let  me  call  the  attention  of  the  Con- 
vention to  this  fact.  At  the  close  of  the  Fourth  century, 
whether  the  church  was  corrupt  or  not,it  was  one.  At  the 
present  time,  the  body  of  Christ  is  rent  into  a  thousand 
forms.  Now  suppose  that  all  the  Presbyterians  in  the 
United  States  of  America  and  all  the  Methodists,  and  all 
the  Baptists,  and  all  the  multiform  sects  in  the  United 
States  were  in  the  Church,  would  the  present  number  of 
Bishops  suffice?  Would  it  be  sufficient  to  have  the 
number  of  Bishops  we  have  now,  if  hundreds  of  thous- 
ands of  communicants  were  added  to  the  church  ?  That 
shows  the  distinction  between  the  illustration  he  drew 
and  the  present  time  of  the  Church.  Then  the  Church 
was  united  ;  now  it  is  divided ;  and  the  only  reason  why 
we  have  not  two  thousand  Bishops  in  the  Church  of  God 
to-day  is  because  of  seliism  and  sectarianism. 


Now  the  learned  deputy  from  Virginia,  in  tones  of 
great  eloquence  declared  that  we,  who  desire 
the  system,  defeat  our  own  ends  by  the  fact  that  we 
would  take  away  from  the  dignity  of  the  Episcopate  all 
that  with  which  it  is  now  invested.  Mr.  President,  I 
do  not  know  that  there  is  a  member  upon  this  floor  who 
has  for  the  Episcopal  office  and  for  those  who  illustrate 
that  oflice  in  our  church  a  higher  degree  of  respect  than 
I  have.  But,  sir,  I  do  not  look  upon  the  Bishop  of  tllfe 
Church  of  God  as  simply  a  Great  Mogul  set  up  to  be 
worshipped.  1  do  not  look  upon  that  office  as  simply  a 
sinecure,  as  simply  something  that  is  shrouded  and  con- 
cealed for  364  days  in  the  year  to  be  brought  forth  upon 
the  365th  for  an  exhibition  before  the  people.  I 
do  not  want  to  have  any  such  veneration  for  the  office 
or  for  the  man ;  nor  do  I  think  they  are  sound  church- 
men who  desire  it.  I  want  the  Episcopate  to  be  a  work- 
ing Episcopate.  I  want  the  Bishops  to  be  working 
Bishops.  I  want  them  to  go  into  parishes,  and  it  will  be 
all  the  better  if  they  have  a  talk  with  "Uncle  Jack"  and 
"Aunt  Susan"  even  more  than  they  did  when  they  visit- 
ed the  deputy  from  Virginia,  whose  experience  and 
mine  are  sadly  at  variance.  [Dr.  Andrews  : — It  was  not 
in  Virginia.]  It  varies  from  my  experience  much.  We 
long,  in  the  parish  from  which  I  come,  for  the  presence 
of  our  Bishop;  and  we  desire  that  his  personal  influence 
should  be  exercised  over  the  Uncle  Jacks  and  the  Aunt 
Susans.  I  know  that,  when  the  Bishop  comes,  his  main 
office  is  for  confirmation,  that  which  cannot  be  done  by 
any  one  save  himself;  yet  whoever  thinks  that  the 
Bishop  ends  his  duties  by  confirmation  mistakes,  in  my 
humble  judgment  the  purpose  of  the  Episcopate.  Is 
that  the  Episcopate  that  St.  Peter  undertook  ?  Is  that 
the  Episcopate  set  before  us  by  any  of  the  first  Bishops 
of  the  Church  '?  No,  sir,  it  was  not  merely  to  place 
Episcopal  hands  upon  the  humble  penitent  who  came  to 
ratify  his  baptismal  vows  ;  it  is  not  only  to  transmit  the 
Episcopal  ministry.  Those  are  unquestionably  the  dis- 
tinguishing features  of  his  office.  He  is  a  minister  of 
the  living  God.  He  has  by  virtue  of  the  high  position 
which  he  holds  more  power  to  do  good  than  the  parish 
priest  alone ;  and  he  may  come  and  hold  up  the  hands 
of  the  parish  priest  who  for  years  has  been  standing 
alone,  perhaps,  amid  misrepresentation,  and  he  may  not 
only  help  bim,  but  absolutely,  if  it  be  necessary, 
confirm  the  faith  of  Uncle  Jack  and  Aunt  Susan. 

We  have  heard  from  the  gentleman  from  Texas  con- 
cerning the  herculean  labor  that  has  been  performed 
by  the  Bishop  of  that  Diocese,  and  it  does  not  need 
any  amplification  from  me  to  show  that  it  is  impossible 
for  human  nature  to  endure  that  much  longer.  But 
let  me  call  the  attention  of  this  Convention  to  the  power 
for  good  that  the  Bishop  can  exercise  by  bringing  to- 
crether  parishes,  and  enabling  them  to  touch  hands  in  the 
communion  of  the  saints.  The  deputy  from  Virginia 
has  alluded  to  the  little  good  that  has  resulted  from  the 
multiplication  of  Bishops,  and  has  pointed  to  Arkansas, 


53 


and  has  stated  that  in  that  Diocese  there  is  but  one 
parish,  and  that  has  as  its  rector  the  Bishop  of  the  Dio- 
cese. I  would  state  that  Arlsansas  is  not  a  Diocese,  but 
a  missionary  station,  and  the  Bishop  who  is  in  Arliansas 
is  the  missionary  Bishop  of  the  suuth-vvest,  Bishop  Lee. 
But  even  if  it  were  a  Diocese,  h^'  (as  well  as  1),  knows 
so  well  the  ravages  of  an  unhappy  war  not  only  uj)on 
individuals  but  upon  churches,  that  there  can  be  no  argu- 
ment based  upon  our  destitution  to-day.  Wo  are  una- 
ble to  do  more  than  oiler  up  our  prayers.  There  can 
be  no  argument  based  upon  the  condition  of  Te.\as. 
When  that  Diocfee  was  admitted,  it  was  a  self-supports 
ing  Diocese,  but  in  the  Providence  of  God,  during  the 
progress  of  the  war,  it  has  been  stripped  of  its  wealth; 
the  men  who  supported  it  are  dead  ;  their  wealth  is 
gone  ;  their  churches  are  burned.  I<ow,  to  bring  that 
as  an  argument  to  show  that  the  incrense  of  the  Episco- 
pacy has  been  a  failure,  1  do  not  think  is  a  sequitur. 
Give  us  three  years  more  with  the  ministrations  of 
the  man  who  is  Bishop  of  the  South-west,  and  by  the 
blessing  of  God,  there  wiU  be  a  difierent  report  from 
that  made  to-day.  There  is  encouragement  in  the  field  of 
Arkansas,  but  to  ask  for  self-supporting  parishes  in  many 
parts  of  the  South  and  South-west,  is  to  ask  more  than, 
in  the  Providence  of  God,  it  is  possible  for  the  Church 
to  do.  [Dr.  Wheat — there  were  20  parishes  in  Arkan- 
sas before  the  war]  ;  and  there  was  but  one  at  the  expi- 
ration of  the  war. 

To  resume  the  main  point, — as  I  said  before,  I  do  not 
apprehend  that  in  this  step  there  is  the  slightest  tincture 
of  revolution.  In  the  remarks  which  I  had  the  honor  to 
make  the  other  day  upon  the  question  of  a  change  of 
the  word  convention  to  council,  1  heard  myself  reported 
afterward  as  having  made  a  State-rights'  speech,  when 
no  one  who  followed  my  argument,  if  I  was  enabled 
to  express  it  with  any  sort  of  facility,  could  have  inferred 
that  I  desired  to  do  anything  less  than  to  blot  out  from 
our  legislation  any  word  that  should  be  connected  with 
State  orgunizatiiin.  But,  sir,  to-day,  upon  this  question, 
1  go  a  step  further  against  the  jiosition  to  which  I  was 
assigned  the  other  day  as  making  a  Stale-rights'  speech. 
It  has  been  always  the  belief  of  my  heart,  the  conviction 
of  my  Judgment,  that  we  should  blot  out  all  connection 
with  the  territorial  limits  ;  and  that  was  one  of  the  ideas 
I  desired  to  express  the  other  day,  and  that  is  one  reason 
why  I  desire  to  see  the  increase  of  Episcopacy.  I  do 
not  want  the  Church  of  New  York  to  be  coterminous 
with  the  territorial  limits  of  New  York,  nor  do  I  wish 
the  Church  of  Alabama  to  be  coterminous  with  the  terri- 
torial limits  of  the  State  of  Alabama,  but,  following  the 
pattern  of  the  primitive  Church  of  God,  I  wish  dioceses 
to  be  created  and  erected  just  e.xactly  as  the  wants  of 
the  people  require,  whether  comprising  States,  cities  or 
counties. 

I  would  have  Bishops  in  every  place  where  there  is 
a  necessity  for  Episcopal  supervision.  [A  Deputy  : — 
One  Bishop  to  the  city  of  Mew  York  ?  ]     I  would    be 


perfectly  willing.  The  city  of  New  York  has  a  much 
larger  field  of  labor  than  is  worked  by  the  Bishops 
of  the  South  anil  the  Southwest.  I  therefore  say,  with- 
out entering  specifically  into  the  question  of  the  size  of 
the  diocese,  that  we  should  give  a  Bishop  with  the 
Church  wherever  the  Church  is  planted ;  that  whenever 
we  advance  beyond  the  confines  of  present  civilization, 
or  beyond  the  confines  of  the  States  or  territories,  we 
should  plant  with  the  Cioss  a  Bishop,  and  give  every 
means  of  grace  that  God  has  provided  by  the  which  we 
can  carry  forward  the  standard  of  the  Cross ;  and  I  do 
believe  that  in  that  way  alone  shall  we  be  able  to  carry 
out  the  great  work  which  this  branch  of  the  Church 
Catholic  has  undertaken  to  perform.  The  signs  of  the 
times  plainly  show  that  this  Church  is  to  be  the  point  of 
central  unity.  '  I  therefore  desire  that  there  should  al- 
ways be  Bishops  to  be  able  to  confirm  and  ordain ;  and 
in  that  way  the  Church  of  God,  going  on  as  a  unit,  ir- 
respective of  territorial  limits  or  territorial  subdivisions, 
may  be  able  to  live,  as  it  unquestionably  will  live,  be- 
yond revolutions  of  any  character. 

I  do  not  pretend  to  be  wise  enough  to  peer  into  the 
future,  which  is  left  to  the  great  God  who  rules  the 
Church,  but  throwing  it  out  for  what  it  is  worth,  I 
had  ventured  the  assertion  that  we  never  shall  be  able 
to  overcome  the  hosts  of  sectarians  around  us  until 
we  do  it  with  a  three-fold  ministry  meeting  face  to  face. 
It  is  not  simply  by  the  efforts  of  the  Presbyters,  whose 
efforts  in  their  sphere  I  respect  highly,  nor  by  the  efforts 
of  the  layman  in  his  sphere,  though  he  can  do  a  great 
deal.  If  the  ministry  has  been  Divinely  constituted,  the 
Church  should  have  the  benefit  of  its  machinery  from 
the  lowest  point  to  the  Bishops.  With  this  machinery  1 
believe  that  sectarianism  will  dwindle  and  be  forced  to 
come  into  the  Church.  The  gentleman  from  Texas 
has  told  you  what  has  been  done  by  the  Church  of 
Rome  and  sectarians  around  him ;  and  he  has  given  it 
as  the  result  of  his  experience  and  his  deliberate  judg- 
ment that  if  there  were  an  increase  of  the  Episcopate — 
he  did  not  lay  stress  upon  assistance  of  other  sorts  but 
upon  giving  the  Bishops — with  the  Bishops  would  come 
the  means  and  all  the  appliances  for  evangelizing  that 
portion  of  the  country.  I  agree  with  him  with  all  my 
heart ;  I  have  thought  prayerfully  upon  the  subject,  and 
it  has  been  dear  to  my  heart  for  many  years.  In  the 
Convention  of  lb")'.!,  I  had  the  honor  to  state,  in  part, 
some  of  the  reasons  which  now  agitate  my  mind.  I  most 
heartily  give  my  consent  to  anything  which  shall  in- 
crease our  ministry. 

Rev.  Dh.  Paddock,  of  Michigan  : — Mr.  President, 
I  sometime  ago  I  desired  to  say  something  on  the  subject 
i  before  the  House;  I  presume  I  have  forgotten  nearly  all 
of  it ;  but  I  think  there  is  something  that  ought  to  be 
said  yet.  The  very  course  which  the  debate  is  taking 
this  morning  has  satisfied  me  more  than  ever  of  the  pro- 
priety of  the  action  of  the  Committee  on  Canons ;  and  if 
it  had  not  happened  by  some   accident  or  other,   unex 


54 


plained  to  me,  that  I  am  a  member  of  thatCommittee 
on  Canons,  I  should  have  been  bold  to  compliment 
the  exceeding  -wisdom  of  that  committee.  We  have 
seen  it  demonstrated  in  this  House  that  there  are  certain- 
ly two  classes  of  opinions  prevailing  as  to  this  exceed- 
ingly important  matter  of  the  creation  of  new  dioceses 
within  the  limits  of  old  ones ;  and  we  say  without  being 
too  minute,  there  is  one  large  class  of  men  representing 
some  of  the  most  earnest,  devout,  and  hard-working  men 
of  this  Church,  who  are  thoroughly  persuaded  that  dio- 
ceses ought  to  be  brought  down  to  the  smallest  possible 
limits.  And  we  have  here  a  theory  which,  while  some 
gentleman  was  speaking,  I  called  in  my  own  mind  noth- 
ing but  a  sort  of  microscopic  theory,  by  which  a  Bishop 
could  never  do  his  work  unless  he  was  so  well  acquainted 
with  every  man,  woman,  and  child  of  his  diocese  that  he 
absolutely  knew  the  domestic  arrangements  of  its  fami- 
lies. And  then  wo  have  another  theory  to  which  1  do 
not  any  more  subscribe  than  to  the  other,  and  that  I 
would  call  a  sort  of  telescopic  theory — that  the  Bishop  is 
one  whose  only  use  is  to  be  seen  afar  off',  and  when  he 
visits  his  diocese,  his  greatest  care  must  be  that  he  do 
not  stay  too  long  nor  come  too  often.  And  I  confess, 
if  not  indecorous  to  state  it,  that  while  one  gentle- 
man was  speaking  of  the  horrors  that  would  overspread 
the  entire  Church  in  this  land,  the  Divine  visitations 
which  would  be  realized  by  the  Church,  if  the  Bishops 
came  too  often,  I  could  not  help  recalling  that  line  which 
made  me-  think  that  the  only  fit  description  of  a  Bishop 
was  that  which  I  have  heard  given  to  something  else 
which  was  said  to  be — 

"  A  monster  of  so  horrid  mien 
That  to  be  hated  needs  only  to  be  seen." 

1  believe  we  cannot  come  down  to  this  theory.  It  is  an 
awful  coming  down  of  the  work  of  a  Bishop  of  the 
Church  of  God.  There  are  two  distinct  classes  that  vote 
in  this  House;  the  one  inclining  to  ahnost  indefinite  mul- 
tiplication of  Bishops,  the  other  strongly  inclined  to 
throw  every  possible  hindrance  in  the  way  of  their  mul- 
tiplication. It  seems  to  me  that  the  wisdom  of  the  com- 
mittee is  apparent  now.  The  committee  remember  that 
there  has-been  from  the  beginning  in  this  Church,  cau- 
tion in  the  direction  of  too  rapid  multiplication  of  Episco- 
pates. They  rememlier  how  slowly  the  minds  of  the 
Church  had  progressed  towards  what  I  believed  to  be 
the  truth,  namely,  we  must  have  more  Bishops  than  we 
have,  before  we  can  do  the  work  that  Christ  has  laid 
upon  His  Church  in  this  land.  But  the  question  now  is, 
do  you  accept  of  the  amendment  instructing  the  Com- 
mittee on  Canons  to  go  back  to  their  rooms  and  bring 
in  a  report  which  would  leap  over  with  one  single  stride 
all  the  conservatism  of  the  Church  in  this  matter,  for 
the  entire  period  of  its  history,  and  plant  us  on  the 
ground  simply  of  an  illimitable  number  of  Bishops  ? 
Are  you  prepared  to  have  no  restraint  at  all  upon  the 
multiplication  of  Bishops  ?  Are  you  prepared  to  be  mov- 
ed by  the  fact  that  because  there  was  no  support  requir- 


ed for  the  Apostle  Paul,  that  therefore  no  support  need 
be  pledged  for  the  support  of  any  Bishop,  not  even  a 
missionary  Bishop  ?  Are  you  prepared  to  say  that  it 
was  not  the  wisdom  of  the  Apostle  to  become  all  things 
to  all  men  to  win  some  to  Christ  ?  Is  it  not  the  wisdom 
of  the  Church  to  adapt  itself  to  the  change  of  circum- 
stances? Some  men  seem  really  to  imagine  that  they 
are  living  back  again  in  those  glorious  times  of  Saint 
Paul.  I  do  not  suppose  that  any  gentleman  expecting 
to  vote  seriously  upon  this  matter  will  dare  to  stake  bis 
reputation  for  sound  judgment  upon  the  fact  that  were 
Saint  Paul  and  other  Apostles,  or  "the  old  Bishops 
in  the  Eoman  Empire  among  us  to-day,  they  would  nec- 
essarily ailopt  bodily,  all  the  features  of  their  system  of 
Church  organization,  and  transplant  them  into  the  nme- 
teenth  century.  Their  system  was  a  wise  system,  be- 
cause wonderfully  adapted  to  the  condition  of  the  world 
at  that  time.  Uur  system  may  be  wise  now  by  being 
equally  well  adapted  to  the  present  state  of  things. 

If  you  allow  the  committee  to  adopt  the  plan  of  the 
deputy  from  Texas,  you  will  be  led  into  a  sort  of 
special  legislation.  I  beg  gentlemen  to  remember  that 
the  case  presented  by  the  deputy  from  Texas,  is  the 
strongest  instance  that  can  be  presented  by  any  gentle- 
man. He  has  taken  the  largest  diocese  and  has  almost 
persuaded  the  House  by  his  eloquence,  that  it  is  a  fair 
specimen  of  all  our  vast  territories.  No  other  instance 
can  be  given  that  will  compare  with  that ;  and  as  for 
that  instance,  the  learned  deputy  from  New  York 
has  shown  that  there  is  ample  relief  by  putting  part  of 
it  under  the  care  of  a  Diocesan  Bishop  supported  by  the 
missionary  fund.  I  hope-  we  shall  not  be  persuaded  by 
this  one  instance  to  actually  pass  from  our  condition  of 
conservatism  in  this  matter  right  over  into  the  extremest 
license  in  this  matter.  It  will  be  observed  that  the  re- 
port of  the  Committee  on  Canons  makes  a  great  advance. 
Remember  that  the  canon  is  not  in  any  possible  sense 
before  tliis  House.  The  canon  can  not  be  acted  upon 
now,  for  the  reason  that  if  passed  now  it  would  stand  in 
the  face  and  teeth  of  the  constitution.  Therefore  we 
have  nothing  to  do  with  the  canon  so  far  as  action  is 
concerned.  We  merely  ask  you  to  vote  upon  this  one 
limitation,  namely,  before  a  new  diocese  shall  be  formed 
out  of  a  diocese,  the  new  diocese  shall  have  some 
provision  made  for  the  suitable  support  of  the  Bishop. 
In  some  way,  there  should  be  some  limitations  to  indefin- 
ite expansion. 

Mr.  Fairbanks,  of  Tennessee — said  that  while  the 
committee  strike  out  certain  restrictions,  they  impose  a 
heavier  burden  on  the  dioceses  which  require  division 
most.  It  would  be  jumping  from  the  frying-pan  into 
the  fire.  The  pecuniary  restriction  would  to  some, 
justify  the  proverb  that  is  sometimes  applied  to  this 
Church,  that  it  is  the  Church  of  the  wealthy,  whereas  it  is 
the  Church  of  the  living  God.  The  restriction  violates  the 
purpose  of  the  memorialists  from  those  States  wanting  an 
increased  Episcopate ;   it   would  be  burdensome  to  the 


55 


impoverished  dioceses  of  the  South.  If  a  missionary 
Bishop  should  be  interpolated  into  an  ordinary  dioctese 
who  would  support  him  ?  Tennessee  was  naturally  divis- 
ible into  three  parts,  for  each  of  which  a  Bishop  should 
be  provided.  That  was  the  unanimous  Vdice  of  the 
Church  in  Tennessee.  They  were  there  looking  at  the 
interest  of  the  Church,  and  other  dioceses  came  up  to 
the  Convention  with  similar  feelings,  and  all  praying 
that  these  restrictions  should  be  removed  so  that  every 
diocese  may  have  its  wishes  gratified.  He  hoped,  that 
it  would  be  the  sense  of  the  House  that  the  restric- 
tions shall  be  removed,  and  that  the  little  ones  taken 
away  would  not  be  the  cause  of  imposing  heavier  ones. 
He  hoped  that  the  support  of  the  Episcopate  from  with- 
out, would  not  meet  with  approval,  for  the  Bishop  so 
supported  would  be  apt  to  feel  himself  the  servant  of 
those  who  furnished  the  money. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead  : — I  wish  to  say  a  few  words  upon  this 
subject.  It  is  a  raa-Kim,  and  a  very  good  one,  and  I  wish 
the  brother  who  just  .sat  down  would  hear  it,  that  when 
we  can  not  get  all  we  want,  it  is  most  prudent  to  get  all 
we  can.  If  you  were  to  take  out  this  proviso  which  i.s 
now  proposed,  my  word  for  it,  you  would  get  the  prop- 
osition back  with  the  dissent  of  the  House  of  Bishops.  The 
House  of  Bishopsoriginally  put  in  these  large  restrictions, 
and  we  have  gradually  worked  them  down.  Letme  call  at- 
tention to  one  fact.  It  appears  to  me  tiiat  gentlemen  have 
forgotten  that  this  is  a  proposed  amendment  to  the 
constitution  that  does  not  operate  upon  a  diocese  after 
it  has  become  an  acknowledged  dioc  se.  I  have  heard 
gentlemen  say,  Are  we  to  have  a  General  Convention 
sitting  in  judgment  upon  our  Bishop's  salary  ?  It  has 
nothing  to  do  with  that.  It  is  simply  the  question  of 
the  admission  of  new  dioceses,  and  tlie  circumstances 
of  their  formation.  The  Bishop  of  the  old  diocese  must 
give  his  consent,  and  the  members  of  the  Convention 
must  be  satisfied  that  the  new  diocese  will  give  sufficient 
support  to  the  Bishop  if  they  are  set  apart  and  acknowl- 
edged. The  statement  of  the  deputies  from  the  old 
diocese  and  of  the  Bishop,  who  is  a  member  of  the 
House  of  Bishops,  will  be  all  that  is  necessary  to  satis- 
fy this  Convention.  We  do  not  want  them  to  say  that 
the  diocese  shall  give  two,  three,  or  four  thousand  dol- 
lars a  year.  No ;  we  only  want  to  be  .satisfied  that  the 
Bishop  will  receive  an  adequate  support,  according  to 
the  condition  of  the  diocese,  so  that  he  may  livf  as  his 
people  do.  Why  should  any  one  wish  to  imperil  this 
amendment  by  striking  out  that  provision  V  If  you  ilon'l 
take  this  amendment  to  the  constitution  as  it  is,  I  believe 
you  will  get  none.  You  have  this  constitution  still  ex- 
isting which  requires  fifteen  parishes  and  fifteen  settled 
clergymen  in  the  new  diocese,  and  to  leave  thirty  par- 
ishes and  thirty  clergymen  m  the  old  diocese  In  con- 
clusion, I  should  say  that  I  am  friendly  to  the  division  of 
dioceses  to  any  reasonable  extent.  I  have  even  felt  the  im- 
portance of  striking  out  this  clause  of  the  .5th  Article  of 
the  Constitution ;  but  I  am  sufficiently  a  man  of  policy, 


that  if  I  can't  get  every  thing,  I  want  to  take  what  I  can, 
and  be  thankful  for  the  smallest  favors. 

G.  C.  Shattuck,  M.  D.,  of  Massachusetts : — I  have 
a  few  words  to  say  on  this  money  question.  I  wish  sim- 
ply to  relate  the  e.xperience  of  my  own  diocese  with  re- 
gard to  this  question,  and  show  why  I  think  it  an  impor- 
tant provision.  I  certainly  should  not  vole  for  this  resolu- 
tion if  that  provision  were  stricken  out ;  and  at  the  same 
time  I  am  in  favor  of  the  extension  of  the  Episcopate. 
Still  I  agree  with  the  deputy  from  Virginia  that  there  is 
danger  at  this  period  of  going  too  widely  into  this  matter. 
I  regard  this  money  provision  as  secured  in  the  liberali- 
ty of  the  laity  of  this  Church,  if  we  put  this  mone}'  pro- 
vision in.  We  have  had  a  Bishop  in  Massachusetts  for 
many  years  who  was  universally  respected  and  univer- 
sally beloved,  and  who  was  poor  beside,  and  we  kept  him 
so.  Every  now  and  then  persons  would  go  and  see  his 
condition,  and  tliey  would  send  him  something.  There 
was  still  something  for  us  to  do  ;  it  is  not  the  position  for 
the  laity  to  put  a  Bishop  into.  It  is  the  wisdom  of  the  Eng- 
lish Church  to  see  that  the  Bishop  has  some  provision 
for  his  support,  and  they  do  not  have  any  Bishop  made 
until  he  is  personally  independent  of  every  body.  We 
had  a  Bishop  provided  for  as  rector  of  a  church.  Fi- 
nally, we  needed  more  of  his  services,  and  he  wished  to 
give  himself  more  to  the  Episcopate,  and  then  the  ques- 
tion came  up  before  the  laity.  Shall  we  keep  him  on 
faith?  Our  Bishop  had  exhibited  great  self  denial.  For 
the  first  ten  or  twelve  years  he  gave  all  his  salary  to 
support  missionary  work.  Then  reverses  came,  and  he 
could  not  live  without  support;  and  all  those  to  whom  the 
matter  was  referred  were  unanimous  that  he  was  entitled 
to  an  independent  support  from  the  diocese.  We  set 
out  to  get  it.  One  committee  tried  to  raise  it,  and  re- 
signed without  accomplishing  it  ;  and  then  another  com- 
mittee which  failed  to  raise  the  requisite  amount,  and 
asked  to  be  discharged  ;  and  so  several  committees  were 
appointed.  I  had  the  honor  to  be  chairman  of  the  last 
committee,  and  it  took  us  five  years  of  hard  besguig  be- 
fore we  could  get  up  the  amount  necessary  to  a  bare 
support.  I  should  be  ashamed  to  report  some  of  the 
answers  to  our  appeals.  People  looked  upon  the  Bish- 
op as  their  servant,  and  they  found  all  sorts  of  fault ; 
and  the  conclusion  in  my  mind  was  that  I  would  not  ex- 
pose any  Bishop  to  that  ordeal  again,  and  that  I  would 
always  advocate  as  a  very  iuiportant  thing,  that  before  a 
Hishop  is  sent  out  he  should  be  provided  for. 

The  Convention  then  adjourned  to  10  o'clock  to-mor- 
row. 

NINTH   day's  PROCEEDINr.S. 

Friday,  Oct.  16th,  1868. 
The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Morning  Prayer  was  siid  by  the  Revs.  Dr.  Parker  of 

Ma-ssachusetts,  and  Scott  of  Florida. 

The  Benediction  was   pronounced  by  the    Bisho[)  of 

Connecticut. 


56 


The  Journal  of  yesterday's  proceedings  was  read  and 
approved. 

Hon.  S.  B.  Ruggles  : — I  desire  to  offer  a  resolution 
proposing  an  amendment  to  the  constitution  by  reduc- 
ing the  number  of  Deputies  in  this  House,  and  I  more 
that  the  proposed  amendment  may  be  taken  up  and  con- 
sidered in  connection  with  the  present  proposition  [for 
the  admission  of  new  dioceses]  which  will  greatly  en- 
large the  number  of  dioceses.  The  one  amendment 
will  necessitate  the  other.     The  resolution  is  as  follows: 

Resolved,  The  House  of  Bishops  concurring,  that  the 
alteration  of  the  constitution  recommended  by  the  suc- 
ceeding resolution  be  made  known  to  the  several  Dioce- 
san Conventions  ;  and  further  resolved,'  That  Article  3 
of  the  Constitution  be  amended  as  follows:  by  striking 
out  of  said  Article  the  wonls  "four  clergymen  and  four 
laymen,"  and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof  the  words  "  three 
clergymen  and  three  laymen,"  and  by  adding  to  the 
said  Article  the  tbllowing  words :  "  whenever  the  dio- 
ceses admitted  into  union  with  the  General  Convention 
shall  exceed  fifty  in  number,  the  representation  from 
each  shall  be  reduced  to  two  clergymen  and  to  two  lay- 
men. 

The  importance  of  considering  this  proposition  in  con- 
nection with  the  one  to  increase  the  number  of  dioceses 
will  bo  readily  perceived.  The  number  of  this  House 
is  8  times  35  that  is  280.  Including  Nebraska  we  have 
35  dioceses  in  union ;  and  the  four  dioceses  that  have, 
been  brought  in  beside,  by  our  recent  action,  will  add 
32  more,  making  312  as  the  number  of  this  House.  In 
the  next  three  years,  if  the  proposed  alteration  of  the 
canon  shall  pass  facilitating  the  introduction  of  new  di- 
oceses, we  may  expect  a  large  accession  of  dioceses.  If 
the  enthusiastic  hopes  are  at  all  realized,  the  old  dioceses 
will  burst  into  blossoms  of  dioceses  for  good  or  ill.  But 
apart  from  such  glowing  hopes  we  see  a  certain  amount 
of  reality.  There  will  probably  be  one  from  Pennsylva- 
nia, one  from  Connecticut,  and  one  or  two  from  Wiscon- 
sin. That  is  the  smallest  increase  in  the  next  convention, 
which  will  add  32  more  members,  making  the  number 
344.  Now  I  ask  can  wc  go  on  in  that  way  much  longer  ? 
Have  we  not  reached  the  point  where  we  can  go  no  far- 
ther ?  If  we  augment  the  number  of  our  dioceses,  we 
must  diminish  the  number  of  Deputies /jro  lanto- 

In  the  first  place  three  will  be  better  than  four  as  giv- 
ing a  majority  which  will  control  the  vote. 

It  is  so  in  our  representation  in  parishes  and  should  be 
so  here.  When  the  dioceses  become  50  we  shall  have 
400  delegates ;  but,  by  that  change,  I  propose  that  the 
number  be  reduced  to  four  from  each  diocese,  that  is 
two  clergy  and  two  laymen ;  and  the  House  be 
brought  back  to  a  manageable  body  of  200.  As  we  go 
along  down  the  stream  of  time  we  shall  come  down  to 
100  dioceses — and  I  do  not  want  to  look  farther.  Then 
it  will  have  to  be  reduced  to  one  clergyman  and  one 
layman,  and  that  is  the  minimum  ;  we  cannot  represent 
the  clergy  and  the  laity  short  of  that.  When  we  get 
100  dioceses  we  shall  have  two  representatives  from 
each,   making  a  House  of  200 — a  manageable    House. 


The  representation  of  this  question  will  bring  about  a 
test  vote.  It  is  perfectly  certain  that  if  you  do  not  re- 
duce the  number  of  Deputies  you  will  be  forced  into 
the  Provincial  system,  and  therefore  I  commend  it  to  the 
careful  consideration  of  the  House. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Ruggles,  his  motion  was  laid  upon 
the  table  to  be  considered  in  connection  with  the  other 
proposition. 

Rev.  Dk.  J.  S.  B.  Hodges — offered  the  following 
amendments  and  additions  to  Canon  II.,  Title  1  ; 

In  section  1,  after  the  word  "producing,"  in  the  sec- 
•ond  line,  strike  out  the  words  "  the  evidence  of  his  being 
a  minister  thereof,"  and  add  at  the  end  of  the  section 
the  words  "  the  evidence  of  his  being  a  minister  of  the 
Church,  or  of  some  Church  in  communion  therewith." 

In  section  2,  after  the  word  "  minister,"  in  the  fourth 
line,  introduce  the  words  "  of  the  Church,  or  of  some 
Church  in  communion  therewith." 

And  add  the  following  new  section  : 

Section  3.  No  minister  of  this  Church,  settled  over  any 
parish  or  congregation,  or  in  temporary  charge  thereof, 
shall  invite  or  permit  any  person  not  having  had  Epis- 
piscopal  crdinntiou  to  officiate  with  him  or  in  his  place 
or  stead  on  any  occasion  of  public  worship  in  the  church 
or  congregation  over  which  he  is  so  settled  or  in 
charge. 

Sec.  4.  No  minister  shall  invite  or  permit  to  officiate 
as  aforesaid  any  minister  ordained  by  a  Bishop  not  in 
communion  with  this  Church,  unless  such  person  shall 
have  been  received  as  a  minister  of  this  Church  under 
Canon  IX.  of  Title  1. 

A  motion  to  table  the  resolution  was  lost ;  it  was  then 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  Canons. 

A  motion  to  take  a  recess  of  one  hour  and  to  adjourn 
at  four  o'clock  was  lost. 

jVIr.  Ambkose  Todd,  of  the  Diocese  of  Kansas — of- 
fered the  following  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  it  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
the  Prayer  Book  to  consider  the  expediency  of  erasing 
from  the  commission  given  liy  the  Bishop  to  the  pres- 
byter in  the  prayer  following  the  Ordering  of  Priests, 
the  words  "  Whose  sins  thou  dost  forgive  they  are  for- 
given, and  whose  sins  thou  dost  retain  they  are  re- 
tained." 

Mk. 

table. 


-moved   to  lay  the   resolution    on   the 


Rev.  Dr.  Adams  : — I  move  that  the  gentleman  have 
leave  to  withdraw  his  resolution  inasmuch  as  I  think  no 
clergyman  has  a  right  to  make  such  a  petition.  I  do  not 
want  that  resolution  to  appear  upon  the  records  of  the 
House. 

Mb.  Todd — wished  to  make  an  explanation ;  but  as 
the  motion  to  table  precluded  any  remarks,  and  as  con- 
sent of  the  House  was  not  given  he  said  he  would  not 
withdraw  his  resolution  as  he  could  not  do  so  without 
the  opportunity  to  e.xplain. 

On  motion  the  resolution  was  tabled. 

Rev.  Dr.  Adams — offered  the  following  resolution : 

Resolved,  The  House  of  Bishops  concurring,  that  the 
phrase  "  Presiding  Bishop,"  in  Canon  0,  section  3,  line  3, 
Title  II.,  be  referred  to  a  joint  committee,  to  sit  during 


57 


the  recess  between  this  and  the  next  General  Conven- 
tion, to  report  as  to  the  meaning  of  that  phrase. 
Whether  it  simply  menns  the  prcsiiling  Bishop  of  the 
House  of  Bishops,  or  whether  it  means  that  which  stands 
upon  its  face.  And  if  it  be  a  Presiding  Bi.shop  in  the 
sense  of  a  Primux,  Metropolitan,  or  Patriarch,  that  this 
commiltee  report  a  canon  defining  his  powers,  and 
bring  the  pre.sent  phraseology  of  the  Constitution  and 
Canon  into  harmony  with  itsell,  and  prescribe  the  mode 
of  his  election. 

It  will  be  seen  that  this  resolution  is  one  which  sim- 
ply inquires  into  the  meaning  of  a  certain  phrase — "  Pre- 
siding Bishop  of  this  Church  " — that  that  phrase  occurs 
in  one  of  our  canons — that  that  phrase  seems  to  say  and 
does  say  that  we  have  a  "  presiding  Bishop  of  this 
Church."  I  wish  to  understand  whether  there  is  a  pre- 
siding Bishop  of  this  Church  or  whether  the  doctrine 
which  I  was  taught  in  my  course  that  there  is  no  presid- 
ing Bishop  of  the  Church,  but  that  there  is  a  presiding 
Bishop  of  the  House  of  Bishops,  be  correct.  I  was 
taught  that  there  was  no  presiding  Bishop  of  the  Church. 
A  member  of  the  Committee  on  Canons,  in  tact  two  or 
three  of  them,  will  state  that  this  was  their  instruction  also. 
1  will  slate  also  another  fact,  that  this  phrase  •'  presiding 
Bishop  of  this  Church  "  occurs  simply  in  one  canon,  that 
is  to  say  Canon  9  ;  and  that  canon  was  passed  in  1856.  I 
cannot  ascertain  the  fact,  but  it  is  my  impression  that  that 
phrase  "  presiding  Bishop"  was  introduced  into  that  canon 
in  1855.  That  canon  refers  back  to  canons  of  1841-44. 
I  have  gone  over  those  canons  very  carefully  and  the 
phra.se  '"presiding  Bishop  of  this  Church"  does  not  oc- 
cur in  them.  In  the  .irst,  1841,  the  phrase  "  presiding 
Bishop"  occurs  three  or  four  times.  In  the  second  can- 
on it  occurs  four  or  live  times;  but  the  phrase  "presid- 
ing Bishop  of  this  Church  "  does  not  occur  in  this  can- 
on. When  that  phrase  "  presiding  Bishop  of  this 
Church  "  was  introduced,  I  do  not  know,  but  I  suppose 
it  was  introduced  in  185.5-6.  I  should  like  any  gentle- 
man of  this  House  to  show  me  the  phrase  "  presiding 
Bishop  of  this  Church  "  antecedent  to  that  canon  of  1856. 
I  am  not  a  member  of  the  Committee  on  Canons,  but  I 
know  that  the  Committee  on  Canons  embraces  upon  all 
points  of  canonical  knowledge  the  greatest  amount  of  in- 
formation and  science  that  can  be  had.  I  should  like 
that  committee  to  tell  me  whether  the  term  "  presiding 
Bishop  of  this  Church"  was  put  into  the  Constitution  or 
into  canons  before  that  time ;  because  if  it  was  not  we 
have  in  that  canon  of  1856  an  instance  of  a  sort  of  iecis- 
lation  that  is  very  common  in  political  bodies,  but  is  not 
very  common  in  our  Religious  bodies — that  is  to  say,  the 
introducing  of  a  new  idea  by  a  side-wind.  We  have 
been  taught  previously  that  there  was  no  presidin" 
Bishop  of  this  Church,  but  by  introducing  a  phrase  in- 
cidentally, we  have  a  presiding  Bishop  of  this 
Church ;  and  taking  the  constitution  interpret- 
ed by  this  phrase,  I  cannot  see  how  you  will  avoid 
acknowledging  that  upon  the  sense  of  the  canons 
^  literally  as  interpreted  there  must  be  a  presiding  Bishop; 
that  is  to  say,  we  have  a  primate,  metropolitan,  or  pa- 
8 


tnarch,  eanonically.  Now  my  opinion  in  reference  lo 
this  matter  is  simply  that  there  has  been  a  mistake — 
that  this  phrase  was  not  wanted  simply  to  express  what 
was  there  before,  and  that  therefore  it  was  perfectly  law- 
ful forme  to  lining  forward  that  resolution  concerning  the 
meaning  of  this  phrase.  [Jud^eOtis:  It  is  in  article  10] 
It  is  "  presiding  Bishop  of  the  Church  "  that  is  not  in  the 
constitution.  I  venture  to  say  that  there  is  not  a  law- 
yer in  this  House  who  will  interpret  on  the  plain  literal 
sense  of  the  words  presiding  Bishop,  using  this  canon, 
that  must  not  say  that  wo  have  a  presiding  Bishop  of 
this  Church.  I  have  looked  over  all  places  in  which 
the  woi-ds  oecurj  and  I  have  to  say  that  the  phrase 
"  presiding  Bishop  "  simply  occurs  without  anything  at- 
tached to  it  in  16  or  18  places  in  the  constitution  .and 
canons.  The  "  presiding  Bishop  of  the  House  of  Bish- 
ops" occurs  in  three  places,  and  the  presiding  or  senior 
Bishop,  taking  the  one  as  the  alternate  of  the  other,  oc- 
curs in  three  places  more.  I  will  say  further  that  I 
have  no  objection  whatsoever  to  this  Church  having,  if 
it  cho  )ses,  a  presiding  Bishop,  giving  him  the  powers  of 
a  presiding  Bishop,  and  leaving  him  to  act  by  the 
authority  thereof;  bu*  if  it  has  to  be  done  I  want  it  to 
be  <lone  clearly,  distinctly,  by  the  vote  of  the  Church. 
I  do  not  want  a  change  so  great  as  this  to  be  introduced 
by  a  side-wind — to  be  introduced  by  altering  a  phrase 
quietly  in  1856,  or  at  any  other  time.  I  want,  if  wo 
are  to  have  a  presiding  Bishop,  to  have  him  according  to 
our  constitution  and  canons,  with  his  powers  defined 
strictly,  and  the  thing  understood. 

Mr.  Farns  worth's  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  was 
lost;  Ayes  87,  Nays  115. 

Gov.  Fish — moved  as  a  substitute  (adopted)  the  fol- 
lowing resolution  : 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Canons  be  directed 
to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  striking  out  the  words 
"  of  this  Church,"  after  the  words  "Presiding  Bishop" 
in  section  3,  Canon  9,  Title  II. 

Rev.  Dr.  Little.john — reported,  from  the  Domestic 
and  Foreign  Missionary  Committee  the  following  (adopt- 
ed) resolution. 

Resolved,  The  House  of  Bishops  concurring,  that  in 
Article  3d  of  the  Constitution  of  the  Board  of  Missions, 
for  the  words  "  four  in  number  from  each  diocese  in 
union  with  the  Convention,"  there  be  substituted  the 
following  words,  "  at  least  equal  in  number  to  four  times 
the  number  of  dioceses  in  union  with  the  General  Con- 
vention." 

The  President  announced  the  appointment  of  a  com- 
mittee on  Dr.  Mahan's  Report  and  Resolutions,  name- 
ly :  Dr.  Mulchahey,  Mass.,  Dr.  Otis,  Mich.,  Rev.  Dr. 
C.  B.  Dana,  Miss.,  S.  H.  Treat,  111.,  H.  A.  Schroeder, 
Ala. 

The  time  for  the  order  of  the  day  having  arrived — 

The  Secrktary — read  the  report  of  the  Committee 
on  Canons  as  to  section  ."),  clause  12,  Title  I.  of  the  lli- 
gcst,  with  reference  to  clerical  intrusion. 

On  motion  of  Rev.  Mr.  Rogers,  of  Texas,  the   onler 


58 


of  the  day  was  postponed,  to  take  up  the  unfinished 
business  of  yesterday — the  .imendment  to  constitution, 
as  to  tlie  formation  of  new  dioeeses. 

G.  C.  Shattuck,  M.  D.  (resuming): — I  was  speali- 
ing,  when  the  House  adjourned  yesterday,  to  one  point — 
tlie  advisability  of  that  provision,  that  there  should  be 
assured  a  support  for  the  Bishop  )iefore  he  is  elected.  I 
mentioned  that  I  had  been  led  to  this  conclusion — that 
the  way  of  managino;  those  cases  in  England,  where  no 
Bishop  is  sent  out  until  a  support  is  provided  for  him, 
was  a  wise  one.  When  I  spoke  of  the  diocese  in  which 
there  had  been  a  Bishop  for  twenty  years,  and  where  an 
effort  to  provide  an  independent  salary  consumed  the 
whole  time  of  eight  years,  I  did  not  mean  to  insmuate 
that  there  was  less  disposition  to  contribute  for  so  im- 
portant an  object  than  in  the  adjoinmg  diocese,  where 
there  being  a  new  Bishop,  the  support  was  provided  in 
six  months.  I  meant  that  it  was  human  nature  ;  and 
that  if  the  two  cases  had  been  reversed  I  believe  there 
would  have  been  the  same  difficulty  in  attaining  the 
desired  object.  Therefore  I  advocated  the  wisdom  of 
this  measure,  that  there  should  be  provision  for  the 
Bishop  in  the  outset  and  that  he  shouUi  know  exactly 
what  his  support  was.  I  have  heard  that  the  lay  dep- 
uty from  Pennsylvania  has  a  motion  to  offer,  which  it 
seems  to  me  would  dispose  satisfactorily  of  tl^is  matter, 
and  I  should  like  to  yield  the  i]t>or  to  him  and  hear  what  I 
he  has  to  say  on  the  subject  before  I  say  anything  fur- 
ther. 

Mr.  Welsh,  of  Pennsylvania — having  the  floor, yield- 
ed to — 

Rev.  Dr.  Haigiit,  of  the  Committee  on  Canons: — 
What  I  have  to  say  is  this,  looking  to  a  resolution  com- 
ing from  a  friend  at  my  right  (Mr.  Welsh)  which  will 
brin  ;  this  matter  to  a  vote.  I  had  hoped  to  have  :in 
opportunity  before  this  matter  came  to  a  vote,  to  say  a 
few  words  in  reference  to  the  general  subject,  and  to 
show  that  the  Committee  on  Canons  had  not  acted 
thoughtlessly  or  unwisely  in  presenting  this  propo.sition. 
A  great  mvany  things  were  said  yesterday  which  would 
not  have  been  said  if  the  gentlemen  had  thought  for  one 
single  moment  that  this  matter  had  been  before  a  com- 
mittee of  the  House  for  several  days — that  it  was  not  a 
haphazard  proposition  thrown  in  simply  to  provoke  dis- 
cussion. I  have  no  desire  to  prolong  this  debate.  I  am 
perfectly  willing  to  waive  all  my  feelings  and  that  of  my 
colleagues  upon  a  proposition  to  be  submitted  by  my 
frieiitl  from  Pennsylvania.  In  allowing  this  matter  to 
go  to  a  vote,  should  it  be  the  will  of  the  House,  the  Com- 
mittee on  Canons  must  not  be  understood  as  assenting 
to  many  views  touching  the  question.  There  were 
many  things  said  most  elo(|uently  by  the  gentleman  from 
Texas,  by  the  gentleman  from  Alabama,  and  by  the 
oentleman  from  Tennessee,  in  regard  to  the  main  points, 
as  to  which  my  heart  went  with  them.  No  man  in  this 
House  sympathizes  morcfully  than  I  do  with  their  hopes 
and  aspirations.     But  this  is  a  question  which  touches 


other  interests  than  those  of  these  dioceses.  It  looks  tea 
question  of  far-reaching  issues,  and  therefore  we  are 
obliged  to  put  aside  our  feelings,  our  sympathy,  our 
deep  interest  in  the  immediate  prosecution  of  the  work 
of  the  Church,  and  to  consider  maturely  the  principles 
upon  which  we  are  acting,  for  if  we  act  upon  unsound 
principles,  then  in  the  long  run  the  Church  whose  life  is 
not  measured  by  the  lifetime  of  a  man  or  a  generation, 
whose  existence  will  run  long  after  time  shall  have  pass- 
ed away,  will  suffer  very  material  injury  in  the  future. 

Mr.  Welsh  :— If  this  be  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  if 
it  is  the  will  of  God  we  should  have  Bishops,  surely  there 
must  be  some  way  to  get  them  where  God  would  have 
them  and  needs  them.  I  am  a  firm  believer  that  it  is  a 
literal  truth,  that  any  branch  of  the  Christian  Church 
that  refuses  to  let  God  preside  over  them  with  Bishops, 
man  will  furnish  with  a  Pope. 

Rev.  Dr.  Maiian  :  I  do  not  see  what  is  to  be  the 
drift  or  force  of  this  ari'angement.  There  is  some  sort  of 
understanding  that  it  is  going  to  put  an  end  to  debate. 
I  should  like  to  understand  by  what  process. 

Mr.  Welsh  : — I  can  only  say  that  it  may  put  an  end  to 
debate  upon  the  particular  proposition  before  us,  but  not 
upon  the  subject.  For  the  first  time  in  a  career  of  more 
than  3')  years  in  convention,  I  was  about  to  call  for  a 
vote  to  lay  a  proposition  on  the  table.  1  was  about  to 
ask  for  the  tabling  of  this  particular  proposition  with  the 
view  of  introducing  that  which  I  will  now  read.  The 
present  proposition  is  so  entangled  that  we  thould  re- 
quire three  or  four  votes  to  reach  the  point  and  then  do 
It  imperfectly.  If  the  House  decree  to  lay  that  on  the 
table,  then  it  was  my  purpose  to  offer  this  : 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Canons  be  instruct- 
ed to  report  such  amendment  to  the  constitution  and 
canons  as  to  remove  all  restrictions  as  to  divisions  of 
dioceses  beyond  the  approval  of  the  Bishop  and  Con- 
vention of  Dioceses  that  ask  for  the  division,  and  the  ap- 
proval of  the  House  of  Bishops  and  the  House  of  Cler- 
ical and  Lay  Deputies  in  the  General  Convention,  as  to 
the  acceptance  of  the  new  dioceses. 

After  discussion  of  the  question  of  order  as  to  the  ob- 
taining of  the  floor  by  one  member  yielded  by  another 
decided  adversely — 

Mr.  Welsh — withdrew  his  motion  to  table  the  differ- 
ent proposition,  and  offered  his  own  proposition  as  a 
substitute. 

The  Pkksident: — I  beg  leave  to  state  to  the  House 
the  actual  position  of  the  question.  The  Committee  on 
Canons  have  reported  an  amendment  to  the  constitution 
two-fold  in  character.  One  is  in  the  nature  of  a  repeal 
of  most  of  the  numerical  and  other  (territorial)  restric- 
tions. That  question  is  not  yet  before  us,  because  they 
reported  previously  a  resolution  to  amend  the  5th  arti- 
cle of  the  constitution  by  adding  this  pecuniary  qualifi- 
cation. The  question  before  us  is  upon  adding  those 
words  to  the  constitution.  If  the  House  rejects  that 
motion,  then  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Canons 
will  be  almost  identical  with  the  substitute  of  the  gen- 


59 


tleman  from  Pennsylvania,  tbat  is,  it  leaves  the  whole 
matter  to  the  action  of  the  Bishop  of  the  diocese,  the 
convention  of  the  diocese,  and  the  General  Convention. 
The  question  would  then  be  upon  the  adoption  of  these 
words  or  the  rejection  of  them.  That  w;is  the  condition 
of  the  question  before  the  oB'ering  of  the  substitute!  ! 
which  is  now  the  first  question. 

Mr.  :     The   proposition   is,  that   before   a   new 

diocese  shall  be  formed  the  General  Convention  shall 
have  assurance  for  the  support  of  the  Bishop.  I  may 
live  to  see  the  day  when  the  State  of  Virginia  will  ap- 
pear before  this  House  asking  for  a  division.  What 
shall  we  do?  If  the  laws  of  tliat  State  remain  as  they 
are  now,  I  don't  see  how  we  can  afl'ord  to  the  General 
Convention  a  satisfactory  assurance  for  the  support  of 
the  Episcopate,  for  under  our  laws  we  can  give  no  other 
assurance  than  that  the  Church  will  walk  by  faith. 
Under  our  laws  we  can  have  no  vested  funds;  and  the 
laws  of  the  State  forbid  ecclesiastical  institutions  from 
holding  more  than  a  certain  amount  of  funds.  The 
way  the  two  Bishops  of  Virginia  are  now  paid  is  out  of 
a  convention  fund  which  is  njiised  by  an  assessment  upon 
the  churches  of  a  sum  equal  to  one  dollar  upon  each  of 
the  communicants  of  each  parish.  We  have  150  par- 
ishes, and  we  report  110  ministers.  By  the  assessment 
we  raise  about  $7,000  or  $8,000.  None  of  the  Bishops 
we  have  ever  had  have  had  the  least  reason  to  complain. 
I  wish  to  present  this  point  to  the  Committee  on  Can- 
ons. What  kind  of  assurance  do  they  mean  to  require  ? 
As  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  [Mr.  Welsh]  has 
well  said,  what  better  guarantee  can  we  require  than  the 
other  prerequisites  still  left,  for  the  formation  of  a  new 
diocese  ?  The  adoption  of  this  provision  would  shackle 
the  judgment  of  our  successors.  By  rejecting  it,  we 
do  not  deprive  our  successors  of  giving  due  weight  to 
that  circumstance,  any  more  than  we  de]irive  them  of 
the  opportunity  to  give  due  weight  to  every  other  con- 
sideration in  the  creation  of  a  new  diocese.  This  busi- 
ness of  over-legislation  in  the  Church  as  well  as  in  the 
State  is  evil.  It  is  well  to  believe  that  those  who  succeed 
us  will  have  as  much  wisdom  as  ourselves.  We  should 
trust  to  the  faith,  honor,  and  zeal  of  the  Church  for  its 
welfare  and  prosperity. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mulchaiiey  of  Massachusetts : — I  want  to  say 
a  few  words  to  suggest  a  difficulty  in  voting  for  the  substi- 
tute of  the  delegate  from  Pennsylvania,  to  accomplish 
the  object  he  desires  to  accomplish.  If  I  understand 
his  object  he  desires  to  get  rid  of  the  pecuniary  condi- 
tion lor  ihe  formation  of  new  dioceses;  and  in  order  to 
do  that,  he  proposes  a  substitute  for  this  series  of  amend- 
ments proposed  by  the  Committee  on  Canons,  that  all 
restrictions  shall  be  removed  other  than  the  consent  of 
the  Bishop.  Now,  it  so  happens  that  there  is  no  pecun 
iary  restriction  in  the  constitution  as  it  now  stands. 
The  Committee  on  Canons  propose  as  the  first  amend- 
ment, the  insertion  of  this  proviso  [for  Episcopal  sup- 
port].    But  for  the  substitute  we  should  have  had  that 


question   directly  before   us,  and   if  we   vote  down   the 
substitute  we  shall  still  have  that  question  before  us. 

I  desire  to  say  a  few  words  more,  duo  to  the  Diocese 
of  Massachusetts.  My  learned  colleague,  one  of  the 
lay  delegates  from  Massachusetts,  has  stated  as  a  reason 
of  this  pecuniary  condition  some  of  the  facts  as  to  se- 
curing Episcopal  support  in  the  Diocese  of  Massachu- 
setts. Those  of  us  who  know  him,  and  have  known  how 
indefatigably  he  has  worked  for  making  up  the  episco- 
pal fund,  certainly  will  not  for  a  moment  suspect  him  of 
designing  any  imputation  upon  either  the  liberality  of 
the  laity  or  the  earnestness  of  the  clergy  in  that  dio- 
cese. Still  it  is  due  to  the  truth  of  the  argument,  if 
not  to  the  facts  in  the  caiSe,  that  somewhat  should  be  add- 
ed to  the  statement  he  has  made.  It  is  true  there  has 
been  difficulty  in  making  up  the  episcopal  fund  in  the 
Diocese  of  Massachusetts ;  it  is  true  also  that  the  fund 
has  been  made  up.  It  should  be  understood  that  the 
difficulty  in  raising  it  has  not  been  the  want  of  liberality 
on  the  part  of  the  laity  of  the  diocese,  nor  the  fact  that 
the  Bishop  was  not  a  new  Bishop.  About  20  years  ago, 
and  after  the  jjresent  Bishoj)  had  been  our  Bishop  for  sev- 
eral years,  a  proposition  was  made  directly  for  making 
up  the  fund  at  that  time.  The  Bishop  declined  to  com- 
ply with  the  proposition,  and  therefore  the  thing  went 
by,  and  that  as  well  as  loral  circumstances  should  be 
taken  into  account,  if  the,  facts  are  to  be  used  as  argu- 
ment on  the  floor  of  this  House.  It  seems  to  me  that 
my  excellent  colleague  has  been  unfoitunate  in  another 
matter — in  referring  to  a  former  Bishop  of  Massachu- 
setts or  of  the  eastern  diocese.  The  argument  which 
was  used  yesterday,  again  and  again,  in  favor  of  the 
pecuniary  requirement  has  been  that  we  are  in  danger 
of  rendering  our  Bishops — shall  I  say,  contemptible,  or 
of  detracting  somewhat  from  the  respect  that  we  should 
otherwise  attach  to  our  Bi>hops,  if  we  allow  them  to  be 
poor  y  And  if  I  understood  the  illustration  of  m}'  col- 
league he  referred  to  the  former  Bishop  of  Massachusetts, 
Bishop  Griswold,  as"  one  who  had  been  allowed  to  be 
without  sufficient  support.  If  the  refusal  to  add  the 
(jccuniary  restriction  to  the  constitution  shall  give  us 
such  Bishops  as  Bishop  Griswold,  what  stronger  argu- 
ment could  be  used  against  it  ?  In  the  amendment 
proposed  by  the  Committee  on  Canons,  they  ado])t  the 
phraseology  of  the  constitution,  providing  for  two  classes 
of  new  dioceses.  The  first  clause  is  very  brief  and  r<'- 
fers  to  new  dioceses  in  territories  or  unformed  dioceses ; 
there  is  absolutely  no  restriclion  to  the  formation  of 
such  dioceses,  but  the  simple  fact  of  acceding  to  the  con- 
stitution of  the  Church  in  the  United  States.  [Reads 
from  the  report  of  the  committee.]  So  that  in  the  liu-- 
mation  of  new  dioceses  in  unformed  territories  the  onlv 
condition  required,  is  that  there  shall  be  si.\  [larishes  and 
six  presbyters.  Mow,  that  disposes  of  a  large  part  of 
the  arguments  adduced  on  the  floor  of  the  House  yes- 
terday. We  were  told  of  the  danger  of  multiplying 
dioceses — the  danger  of  having  very  insigniflcant  dio- 


60 


ceses — the  danger  of  having  Bishops  who  were  not 
properly  supported.  There  is  danger  of  having  inferior 
Bishops — always  danger.  How  can  we  guard  against 
that  ?  Do  you  guard  against  it  by  pecuniary  restric- 
tion ?  On  the  other  hand  is  there  not  an  opposite 
danger  of  forming  dioceses  on  a  pecuniary  basis  ? — of 
forming  too  many  in  the  money  centres  ?  I  am  not 
afraid  of  the  legitimate  development  of  the  life  of  the 
Church.  I  am  afraid  of  these  money  centres,  and 
afraid  of  the  influences  that  come  thence  to  disturb  the 
peace  of  the  Church  all  over  the  land.  I  am  not  alVaid 
of  the  legitimate  development  of  the  Church  from  its 
own  inherent  life,  and  I  do  think  it  is  best  to  leave  the 
Church  in  the  South  and  elsewhere  to  develop  itself  in 
its  own  way. 

Rev.  Dr.  Howe  : — In  answer  to  what  was  said  by  the 
reverend  gentleman  about  the  formation  of  dioceses,  not 
of  already  existing  dioceses,  I  wish  to  say  that  we  have 
heretofore  had  two  classes  of  restriction,  of  which  one 
is  a  territorial  restriction,  and  another  a  restriction  as  to 
the  number  of  ministers.  The  proposition  at  this  mo- 
ment is  to  strike  out  all  restrictions,  and  yet  in  regard 
to  the  organization  of  the  dioceses  of  new  states  or 
territories  there  is  a  geographical  extent,  and  that  makes 
the  two  cases  to  differ.  Now,  in  regard  to  the  question 
asked  of  the  chairman  of  the  committee,  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Virginia,  it  will  be  observed  that  the  restric- 
tion which  it  is  proposed  by  the  committee  to  insert  in 
regard  to  the  organization  of  new  dioceses  out  of  already 
existing  dioceses,  is  intentionally  indefinite  in  its 
terms.  It  does  not  undertake  to  prescribe  how  the 
maintenance  shall  be  provide(^  It  may  be  by  teaching 
a  school,  or  by  being  pastor  of  a  parish.  It  may  be  by 
impo.sing  upon  the  several  parishes  the  requisition  that 
there  shall  be  a  contribution  from  them,  respectively, 
equal  to  one  dollar  from  each  of  their  communicants. 
Now,  let  us  suppose  there  came  up  a  [iroposition  for  a 
new  diocese  in  Virginia,  don't  we  know  that  until  it  has 
adopted  a  constitution  and  canons  of  its  own,  it  will  be 
governed  by  the  constitution  and  canons  of  the  diocese 
out  of  which  it  goes  V  In  the  supposed  case  it  is  re- 
quired by  the  regulations  of  the  old  diocese  there  shall 
be  a  contribution  equal  to  one  dollar  from  each  of  the 
communicants;  and  that- would  constitute  at  once  a  pro- 
vision for  the  Bishop  if  the  new  diocese  is  formed  out  of 
the  old  diocese  of  Virginia ;  for  it  will  carry  with  it  the 
laws  of  the  old  diocese;  there  will  be  immediate  evi- 
dence submitted  to  this  House  and  the  House  of  Bish- 
ops that  there  is  provision  made  for  the  Bishop.  In  re- 
gard to  this  multiplication  of  Bishops,  J  think  there  is  a 
sensible  mean  upon  that  question.  I  think  we  may 
have  too  many  Bishops,  though  I  have  heard  an  argu- 
ment this  morning  for  the  multiplication  of  Bishops 
which  would  be  more  convincing  to  me  than  for  the 
purpose  to  which  it  was  applied.  We  were  told  that 
just  in  proportion  as  we  increase  the  Bishops  we  in- 
crease the  age  of  the  senior  Bishop,  and  by  the  time  we 


have   reached    150    Bishops   we   shall   have     a    senior 
Bishop  approaching  the  age  of  Methuselah. 

Gov.  Stevknson  of  Kentucky — moved  that  the  de- 
bate be  closed  at  half-past  one  o'clock,  giving  Dr.  Haight 
the  right  to  close  the  debate. 

A  substitute  to  allow  only  ten  minutes  for  one  speech 
to  any  member,  prevailed. 

Rev.  Dr.  McIMasijjrs,  of  Minnesota: — We  have 
long  been  feeling  that  there  is  a  propriety  in  taking  off 
some  of  the  restrictive  legislation  upon  the  dioceses. 
Upon  this  matter  we  have  felt,  especially  in  the  West, 
that  there  were  many  cases  of  extreme  hardship  result- 
ing from  the  restriction.  We  have  come  before  this 
legislative  body  and  asked  that  the  restriction  be  taken 
off  in  part.  The  matter  has  gone  to  our  legislative 
committee,  the  Committee  on  Canons ;  and  that  com- 
mittee has  made  a  report,  which  to  my  mind  is  satisfac- 
tory. It  has  taken  off  all  the  restriction  that  we  felt  to 
be  any  grievance.  We  have  felt  that  we  should  be 
able  to  arrange  matters  easily  if  only  the  constitutional 
restriction  were  removed.  I  suppose  that  in  the  West 
generally,  there  would  be  entire  satisfaction  with  the 
report  of  the  committee.  You  have  been  told  that  if 
we  proceed  further  and  take  off  all  restriction,  the 
House  of  Bishops  would  most  unquestionably  kill  the 
bill,  and  I  fully  sympathize  with  the  views  of  the  ven- 
erable gentleman  from  Connecticut  [Rev.  Dr.  Mead] 
that  it  is  better  even  if  we  want  more,  to  take  what  we 
can  get,  than  to  hold  on  for  more  and  lose  it  all.  I  am 
in  favor  of  agreeing  with  the  report  of  the  committee. 
We  shall  lose  the  whole  if  we  do  not  accept  this,  I  am 
abundantly  assured.  I  will  say  still  further  that  there 
is  an  immense  propriety  in  the  General  Council  of  the 
Church  keeping  its  hands  on  the  dioceses.  It  is  well 
known  that  the  presbyters  of  many  small  dioceses  are 
mainly  young  men,  and  they  often  become  exceedingly 
ambitious,  and  anxious  to  divide  their  dioceses-,  some  for 
astonishing  the  world,  and  some  for  other  reasons.  It 
has  long  been  observed  that  there  is  an  intense  individ- 
uality among  our  people.  Children  do  not  want  to  be 
restrained  by  their  parents ;  States  do  not  like  to  be 
controlled  by  Congresses;  dioceses  want  to  throw  off 
the  authority  of  the  General  Convention.  We  need 
the  conservative  element — something  to  hold  Young 
Ameiica  in  his  place.  Already  we  have  instances  of 
dioceses  young  indeed  rising  up  in  complaint  of  their  par- 
ents' name,  and  changing  their  own  name.  I  have  always 
thought  it  would  he  much  more  decorous  and  more  filial 
if  they  had  turned  to  their  parents  and  said,  "  By  your 
leave  we  will  change  our  names."  As  it  is,  I  think  the 
parents  will  have  to  consent  to  the  change  of  the  family 
names  in  order  to  satisfy  the  children.  This  thing  will 
have  to  be  checked.  They  think  it  necessary,  but  older 
heads  may  see  no  necessity.  I  have  known  instances 
of  Bishops  elected  without  any  certain  provision,  and  a 
few  years  have  shown  the  sad  story  that  the  dignity  of 
the  Episcopal  office  was  almost  degraded.     One  Bishop 


61 


in  our  Church  has  supported  himself  for  years  by  teach- 
iu"  school.  I  Another  one  told  me  that  he  accumulated 
within  16  years  an  indebtedness  of  more  than  $5,000 
just  to  support  his  family ;  there  was  no  obligation  telt 
by  any  one,  and  hence  no  provision  made.  I  do  not 
say  th;it  there  should  be  an  endowment;  there  are 
many  other  wajs  by  which  a  satisfactory  assurance  can 
be  given ;  but,  for  heaven's  sake,  let  us  have  no  more 
Bishops  degraded  and  paralyzed  by  being  thrust  out  into 
new  fields  without  a  dollar  of  support,  ashamed  to  meet 
their  own  vestrymen,  their  own  standing  committee, 
their  churchmen  that  they  should  love  and  who  should 
love  them— their  hands  hanging  down  in  weakness  and 
their  heads  in  shame. 

Rev.  Mr.  Gasmann,  of  Nebraska: — I  beg  leave  t 
address  the  Convention  upon  one  subject — that  is  the 
matter  that  Young  America  is  getting  too  big  for  his 
boots.  All  I  have  to  say  about  this  matter  is  this.  In 
the  first  place,  I  do  not  claim  to  belong  to  that  class 
which  comes  under  the  head  of  Young  America.  In 
the  second  place,  we  have  been  held  up  as  an  example 
of  those  who  are  ambitious  to  divide  dioceses.  Now, 
let  me  say  that  I  think  you  will  find  that  this  delegation, 
spoken  of  almost  contemptuously  by  the  reverend  gen- 
tleman, is  inclined  to  adopt  the  committee's  report  in- 
stead of  rushing  headlong  with  a  blind  zeal  for  the 
multiplication  of  Bishops  without  number.  I  entirely 
object  to  any  such  epithet.  There  is  not  a  man  in  this 
Convention  who  will  in  all  humility  submit  to  the  au- 
thority of  his  lii.shop  and  all  other  proper  authority, 
more  than  myself.  I  am  in  favor  of  the  report  of  the 
committee  as  it  stands,  heart  and  head.  I  believe  we 
should  provide  our  Bishops  support  before  we  send  them 
out.  I  believe  in  Bishops  having  faith  to  go  into  the 
missionary  field,  but  I  do  not  believe  we  should  require 
them  to  live  on  miracles;  and  when  a  man  says,  I  am 
willing  to  go  into  the  missionary  field  without  support, 
I  point  to  that  man  as  an  unfit  man  to  go  into  the  mis- 
sionary field.  There  is  not  a  missionary  among  us, 
willing  to  do  this.  Our  missionaries  are  pledged  a  sup 
port  by  the  Boar<l  of  Missions  before  they  go  and  enter 
upon  their  work.  Shall  we  send  into  the  field  a  Bishop 
whose  work  is  herculean  and  ask  him  to  do  without  sup- 
port ?   No,  sir,  it  is  a  thing  beyond  humanity  to  endure. 

JuuGK  CoMSTocK,  of  Western  New  York: — I  am  so 
thurou\;hly  persuaded  of  the  inexpediency  of  introduc- 
ing this  change  into  the  constitution,  that  I  will  ask  tlie 
attention  of  the  House  while  I  state  my  views  in  regard 
to  it.  I  need  not  say  that  I  have  the  greatest  respect 
for  the  Committee  on  Canons ;  yet  we  must  not  be 
governed  by  their  judgment,  but  must  exercise  our 
own.  Let  us  endeavor,  in  the  first  place,  if  we  can,  to 
understand  wliat  the  provision  is  which  the  committee 
propose  to  introiluce  into  the  Constitution  of  the  Church. 
Early  in  the  discussion  yesterday,  1  took  occasion  to  say 
that  the  provision  would  justify  the  General  Convention 
of  the  Church  in  prescribing  the  amount  of  the  salary 


which  the  proposed  diocese  must  pay  to  its  Bishop ;  and 
I  then  supposed  that  if  that  objection  were  well-founded 
it  would  be  accepted  at  once  as  fatal  to  this  change 
in  the  constitution.  Upon  a  further  examination  of 
the  clause,  I  am  still  more  satisfied  that  it  would  not 
only  justify  but  will  require  the  General  Convention  of 
the  Church  in  all  cases  to  prescribe  the  amount  of  the 
salary ;  and  I  beg  leave  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
House  to  the  fact  that  no  gentleman  of  the  committee 
has  denied  that  interpretation. 

Gov.  Fish  : — I  attempted  to  controvert  it. 

Judge  Comstock: — Whatever  may  be  the  views  of 
the  committee,  we  can  not  accept  them  as  determining 
the  meaning  of  their  own  language  [in  a  constitutional 
provision].  We  must  judge  of  the  language  as  those 
who  come  after  us  must  judge — that  is,  by  its  terms ; 
there  is  no  other  canon  of  interpretation.  The  commit- 
tee say  that  an  adequate  provision  must  be  assured  to 
the  Convention.  I  submit  the  question  if  that  does  not 
mean  that  the  provision  must  be  suitable  or  adequate 
(they  are  convertible  terms)  in  amount.  A  provision 
inadequate  in  amount  would  be  unsuitable.  Under- 
standing that  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  proposed  change 
in  the  constitution,  I  deny  the  right  of  the  General 
Convention  or  any  authority  to  intervene  in  a  plain 
matter  of  contract  between  the  diocese  and  the  Bishop. 

Two  messages  were  here  received  from  the  House  of 
Bishops:  No.  12  naming  Bishops  McCoskry,  Lee,  and 
Clarkson  the  special  committee  to  confer  with  Corres- 
ponding Committee  from  the  House  of  Deputies  on  the 
subject  of  Church  unity  ;  No.  13  designating  their  Com- 
mittee on  Canons  a  joint  committee  on  their  part  on 
the  subject  of  admission  to  the  ministry. 

Judge  Comstock — moved  as  a  substitute  for  Gov. 
Stevenson's  motion  to  limit  debate,  that  no  gentleman 
should  speak  more  than  once  nor  more  than  five  min- 
utes, except  Dr.  Haight.     Carried. 

Judge  Comstock  : — I  deny  the  right  on  the  part  of 
the  General  Convention  to  interfere  with  the  contract 
between  the  diocese  and  the  Bishop.  Especially  do  I 
challenge  that  right  in  the  House  of  Bishops.  1  do  not 
think  they  have  a  right  to  interfere  with  a  civil  contract. 
But  this  amendment  means  something  else.  According 
to  all  that  I  know  of  written  language,  it  requires  an 
endowment  of  the  Episcopate.  I  think  it  has  no  other 
sensible,  rational,  or  practical  meaning.  It  will  recjuire 
in  my  interjiretation  that  a  capital  sum  must  be  raised, 
the  income  of  which  will  support  the  Episcopate.  If 
his  be  not  the  interpretation  of  what  is  proposed,  itt 
would  be  difficult,  I  apprehend,  to  suggest  what  the  in- 
terpretation is.  Allow  me  to  ask  the  Committee  on 
Canons — and  I  shall  hear  their  reply  in  due  time — what 
is  the  provision  that  shall  give  .satisfaction  unless  it  is 
an  endowment. 

Mr.  Edwakd  McCrady,  of  South  Carolina: — If 
you  add  this  to  the  constitution  you  are  bound  hand  and 
loot.     If  you  want  to  say  some  provision  shall  be  made, 


62 


name  it.  This  provision  is  so  vague  and  indefinite  that 
if  put  into  the  Constitution,  you  will  be  entirely  at  the 
mercy  of  the  Convention.  If  laws  are  made  for  any 
purpose,  it  is  to  bind  the  strong,  to  restrain  those  who 
may  err.  I  want  to  know  what  shall  be  the  restriction. 
Of  all  restrictions  none  can  be  so  utterly  subversive.  I 
come  from  impoverished  regions  of  the  country.  Can 
they  satisfy  this  Convention  ?  No  subscription  even 
could  be  made  in  the  State  from  which  I  come  that  any 
man  could  have  any  confidence  in.  There  is  not  enough 
in  the  future  prospect  to  rely  upon.  I  care  not  how 
you  put  it,  still  this  Convention  declares  by  this  proviso, 
that  unless  you  can  give  an  assurance  of  sufficient 
wealth  you  can  not  have  a  Bishop,  whatever  may  be  the 
needs  of  the  country ;  you  can  not  divide  unless  you 
show  us  money.  I  am  utterly  and  entirely  opposed  to 
that.  I  would  throw  open  the  doors  as  wide  as  they 
can  be  opened  and  take  no  restriction  before  I  would 
take  that.  I  hope  that  no  one  will  vote  for  this  measure, 
believing  that  any  explanation  upon  this  floor  can  in- 
terpret it. 

Judge  Battle: — I  rise  simply  for  the  purpose  of 
disclaiming  on  the  part  of  the  Committee  on  Canons, 
that  any  interpretation  which  they  may  make  as  to  the 
words  tliat  are  recommencied,  shall  be  considered  as  au- 
thoritative. We  set  up  no  such  claim.  They  have  a 
right  to  say  what  they  think  is  a  fair  interpretation  ot 
their  language.  The  gentleman  from  New  York  [Judge 
Comstock]  and  the  gentleman  from  South  Carolina  [Mr. 
McCrady]  are  entirely  mistaken  if  they  suppose  that 
the  Committee  on  Canons  set  themselves  up  as  having 
a  right  to  say  what  is  the  meaning  of  that  language,  and 
that  no  one  must  contradict  them.  With  perfect  defer- 
ence, however,  to  the  opinions  of  other  gentlemen,  we 
think  that  the  language  can  not  possibly  be  compared  to 
the  language  of  an  endowment.  All  that  it  requires  is 
that  the  Convention  should  be  satisfied  in  some  way  that 
the  Bishop  will  be  provided  for,  not  that  he  shall  live 
upon  faith,  which  I  consider  notliing  more  than  living 
upon  the  wind.  1  arose  simply  lor  the  purpose  of  dis- 
claiming on  the  part  of  the  committee  any  claim  on  our 
part  of  setting  up  ourselves  as  the  sovereign  interpreters 
of  words. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mahan. — I  wish  to  say  one  word  in  refer- 
ence to  one  point.  It  is  stated  in  reference  to  this  pro- 
posed provision  that  it  puts  the  new  diocese  entirely 
within  the  power  of  this  Convention  to  say,  for  example, 
what  shall  be  the  sum  of  the  provision,  and  the  like.  If 
you  will  take  the  article  as  it  stands  at  present  you  will 
find  that  this  is  already  the  case ;  that  no  new  diocese 
can  possibly  be  formed  without  the  consent  of  this  Con- 
vention. If  the  consent  of  this  House  is  required,  then 
this  new  diocese  is  already  in  the  power  of  this  Conven- 
tion, and  we  have  a  perfect  right  to  say  whether  it  shall 
exist  or  shall  not.  The  only  object  of  this  proposal  of 
the  Committee  on  Canons  is,  that  when  you  come  to  get 
our  consent,  we  shall  take  into  consideration  one  very 


important  point,  namely,  whether  the  proposed  new  dio- 
cese is  one  likely  to  maintain  the  dignity  of  the  episco- 
pate. Suppose  part  of  the  Diocese  of  Virginia  should 
come  before  this  Convention  to  make  a  new  diocese. 
The  simple  statement  of  their  past  history  and  the  simple 
statement  that  they  had  made  similar  provision  for  the 
future  would  be  ample  provision  for  the  episcopate ;  and 
the  provision  might  be  made  in  a  great  many  such  ways. 
But  all  I  wish  to  say  in  reference  to  this  without  arguing 
the  question  is,  that  the  language  here  was  carefully  con- 
sidered for  the  purpose  of  leaving  it  entirely  to  the  dis- 
cretion of  this  House  to  determine  what  is  a  suitable  pro- 
vision in  each  case  as  it  may  arise.  It  seems  to  me  ut- 
terly impossible  to  find  any  way  in  which  this  language 
can  be  tortured  into  any  particular  assurance.  The 
great  object  was  that  this  House  should  have  before  it 
the  question  of  support  of  the  episcopate  in  any  new 
diocese,  and  use  its  own  discretion  as  to  what  that  should 
be. 

Rev.  Mr.  Marple — read  an  extract  from  Bingham's 
Church  History  as  to  the  use  of  the  oiTertory  in  the 
ancient  Church,  which  was  divided  into  four  parts,  the 
first  of  which  went  to  the  Bishop.  This  justified  the 
assertion  that  the  ancient  Church  had  a  pecuniary  pro- 
vision for  the  support  of  the  Bishop. 

Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin. — I  desire  to  answer  a  question 
as  to  whether  this  provision  is  apostolic.  The  Apostle 
Paul  says  that  "the  Lord  hath  ordained  that  they  who 
preach  the  Gospel  shall  live  by  the  Gospel."  I  don't 
care  whether  you  call  it  worldly  support  or  pecuniary 
support.  The  apostle  voluntarily  declined  to  enjoy  the 
privilege  himself,  for  specific  and  peculiar  reasons.  I 
think  it  is  an  entirely  different  question  whether  Bishops 
shah  deny  themselves  and  serve  the  Church  without  sup- 
port. It  is  our  duty  to  support  our  Bishops.  It  is  our 
duty  under  the  ordinance  of  the  Lord  to  give  them  a 
support ;  and  I  agree  with  the  deputy  from  Nebraska 
that  when  a  man  comes  and  oflers  to  live  without  a  sup- 
port, he  is  not  fit  for  the  work.  Now  who  are  interested 
in  this  case  ?  In  the  first  place,  the  new  diocese  electing 
its  Bishop.  Has  the  old  diocese  any  thing  to  do  with  it  V 
All  parties  agree  that  the  Convention  of  the  old  diocese 
has  a  right  to  consent  or  to  refuse  consent.  All  agree 
that  that  restriction  shall  remain.  Now  they  have  not 
so  much  interest  as  we  have.  The  General  Convention 
has  an  interest  in  the  case,  for  every  Bishop  that  is  added 
to  the  House  of  Bishops  is  one  added  to  the  legislative 
body  of  this  Church.  It  seems  to  me  extremely  reason- 
able, therefore,  that  the  General  Convention  shall  have 
something  to  say.  They  have  it  to  say.  While  the 
General  Convention  has  a  right  to  refuse  or  consent,  1 
will  suggest  whether  you  do  restrict  at  all  if  you  put  in 
the  particular  point  that  there  shall  be  a  pecuniary  sup- 
port. It  may,  thereupon,  be  fairly  argued  that  that  ex- 
cludes all  other  grounds — that  that  provision  having 
been  made  they  would  have  a  right  to  be  admitted. 
JVlr.  Churchill. — There  appear  to  be  two  sets  of 


opinions — some  are  for  multiplying;  Bishops,  and  some 
are  for  having  as  few  as  possible.  Some  seem  to  tMiili 
that  if  we  have  Bishops,  thvy  had  better  be  as  vcileil 
])rophets.  I  do  not  want  Bishops  unless  they  can  mingle 
with  the  people.  J  am  entirely  in  favor  of  the  substitute 
offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania.  That 
puts  it  into  the  power  of  the  General  Convention  to 
make  a  Bishop  when  they  see  fit.  If  this  Convention 
are  not  able  to  form  a  sound  judgment  as  to  vfhether  a 
new  diocese  ■should  be  admitted,  where  are  we  to  look 
for  a  proper  judgment  ?  I  think  that  this  Convention 
has  nothing  at  all  to  do  with  thg  pecuniary  provision. 
A  diocese  asks  for  a  Bishop;  it  elects  a  Bishop;  and  it 
comes  knocking  at  the  door  and  asks  to  be  admitted. 
.Now  is  it  fair  to  ask  if  they  have  made  provision  for 
their  Bisliop  ?  Is  it  not  fair  to  presume  that  we  shall 
have  many  Bishops  who  want  no  salary  at  all?  In  the 
parisli  to  which  I  belong  in  the  state  of  Kentucky — prob- 
ably the  largest  in  the  whole  state — we  have  a  minister 
who  year  after  year  has  devoted  himself  to  the  Church, 
and  has  received  not  one  cent  of  pay,  and  yet  the 
Churclj  under  his  administration  has  flourished  as  in  no 
other  part  of  Kentucky.  And  I  believe  that  there  are 
plenty  of  gentlemen  who  will  be  willing  to  accept  the 
office  of  Bishop,  and  trust  for  support  to  the  people  wlio 
elected  them  Bishop. 

Mr.  — :  — I  understand  the  question  before  the 

House  is  whether  this  Convention  shall  have  control  over 
the  stipend  or  salary  that  shall  be  given  to  the  Bishop 
when  he  is  properly  elected.  We  live  in  a  day  when 
free  churches  have  become  common  throughout  our 
land,  and  when  the  principle  has  been  maintained  that 
the  clergyman  ministering  to  his  people  shall  defxnid 
upon  the  ofl'erings  at  the  altar — that  the  whole  phiu  of 
a  salary  is  all  wrong — that  the  alms  at  the  altar  should 
be  that  which  should  satisfy  him.  We  have  many 
churches  now  estabhshed  on  that  principle.  Now  sup- 
pose a  new  Bishop  should  be  required  in  a  diocese,  and 
one  should  be  elected,  and  be  should  be  sent  forth  on  the 
same  principles  that  the  apostles  were  when  our  Lord 
said  "  Provide  neither  gold  nor  silver,"  &c.  "The  work- 
man is  worthy  of  his  hire."  Suppose  we  should  agree 
to  send  forth  a  Bishop,  should  this  Convention  have  a 
right  to  say  we  have  not  that  right  'i  If  this  rest  riction 
is  to  be  adopted,  don't  the  Convention  assume  that  right? 
Do  they  not  say  you  shall  not  send  them  forth  as  the 
Lord  .sent  forth  His  apostles?  I  should  be  very  sorry  if 
a  Bishop  siioul'l  ever  be  chosen  upon — not  upon  the 
apostolic  plan — but  the  Master's  plan,  and  this  Conven- 
tion should  not  allow  it. 

Kev.  Mr.  Gordon. — I  believe  we  can  reach  the  object 
to-day,  which  the  substitute  woulil  postpone  iiidelinitely. 
The  proposition  is  upon  the  repnrl  of  the  Committee  on 
Canons.  He  proposes  as  a  substitute  that  the  Committee 
on  Cauotis  shall  be  instructed  to  report  a  change  of  the 
Constitution — permitting  an  increase  of  the  episcopate 
without  any  restrictions.     I  think  we  can  do  the  same 


[  thing  to-day  as  his  resolution  intends  shall  be  done  bv 
the  Committee  on  Canons  in  two  weeks,  at  which  time 
I  we  shall  have  to  debate  the  same  thing  over  again.  I 
j  would  ask  whether  it  is  not  better  that  the  gentleman 
I  should  withdraw  his  substitufe,  and  enable  us  to  act  di- 
1  rectly  upon  the  report  of  the  committee? 
I  Rev.  Dr.  Haight: — I  am  deeply  sensible  of  the  kindness 
j  iif  the  House  in  according  to  iiio  an  opportunity  to  .say  a 
few  words,  and  I  will  not  detain  tlieni  longer  than  is  neces- 
sary. I  think  there  is  some  danger  of  our  misunderstand- 
ing each  other  in  reference  to  the  position  which  the  mem- 
bers of  this  House  occupy,  in  regard  to  the  great  question 
of  Church  and  State.  I  suppose  that  all  the  members  of 
this  House  are  equally,  one  with  the  other,  desirous,  above 
all  things,  of  promoting  the  prosperity  and  the  growth  of 
this  branch  of  Christ's  Holy  Catholic  Church.  For  one,  I 
can  only  say  that,  whatever  may  be  my  views  with  regard 
to  a  particidar  plan,  if  I  know  my  own  heart  at  all,  I  have  no 
desire  deeper  in  my  soul  than  to  see  this  Church  lengthenino- 
her  cords,  and  strengthening  her  stakes  as  fast  as  is  com- 
patible with  the  true  interests  of  the  Church.  If  there  are 
any  men  who  desire  to  clog  the  wheels  of  the  chariot  of  this 
Church  as  it  is  going  forward,  I  do  not  know  who  they  are. 
I  repudiate,  for  myself  and  colleagues,  all  such  imputations. 
I  do  not  believe  there  is  a  man  on  this  floor  who  cau  be 
called  an  obstructive  in  the  way  of  Church  extension  and 
Church  growth,  although  we  may  differ  as  to  the  mode  in 
and  by  which  this  prosperity  may  be  promoted.  There  are 
some,  among  whom  is  my  honored  friend  from  Wisconsin, 
for  whom  I  entertain  feelings  of  the  deepest  respect,  feel- 
ings which  began  years  ago  when  (I  am  almost  ashamed  to 
say  it)  he  was  my  pupil  and  knew  more  than  I  did — I  say, 
there  are  those  among  us  who,  with  him,  seem  to  suppose 
that  all  that  is  necessary  to  promote  the  growth  of  the 
Church  is'  to  settle  the  question  of  organization  and  the 
proper  nomenclature.  I  am  free  to  admit  that  the  question 
of  organization  is  an  important  one,  that  the  question  of 
names  is  not  an  unimportant  one  ;  but  I  cannot  agree  that 
if  we  settle  these  questions,  henceforth  the  progress  of 
the  Church  will  be  rapid.  It  may  be,  and  it  may  not  be. 
Then,  there  are  those  who  seem  to  think  all  you  have  to  do 
for  the  growth  of  the  Church  is  to  stud  this  world  all  over 
with  Bishops.  There  is  no  man  here  who  has  a  higher  rev- 
erence for  the  Episcopal  Office  than  I  have,  or  who  appre- 
ciates their  functions  more  in  the  riiurch  of  Christ.  But 
you  might  plant  25  Bishops  in  tlie  State  of  Texas,  and  how 
much  would  the  Church  grow  in  the  next  year  ?  There  is 
something  beside  the  Bishop  necessary.  I  know  the  old 
maxim,  Ecclesia  est  in  Ephcopo.  It  is  a  sound  maxim,  but  it 
is  not  a  universal  maxim.  There  is  something  besides  or- 
ganization, and  there  is  something  besides  the  presence  and 
authority  of  the  Bishop,  necessary  for  the  growth  of  the 
Church  of  Christ.  The  Lord  has  ordained  other  elements, 
and  you  can  not  ignore  these  and  expect  the  great  results 
which  prophecy  leads  us  to  expect,  in  our  day.  We  want 
organization  ;  and  we  want  Bishoprics  extended  and  multi- 
plied; but  besides  the  organization  and  Bishops,  we  want 
that  those  Bishops  shall  be  able  to  go  to  their  work  with 
untramnieled  hands  and  with  minds  at  ease.  W^e  want 
them    to  have  tliat  wliicli  the  Lord  has  also  ordained — the 


64 


silver  and  gold  wherewith  to  do  their  work.  We  want  that 
they  shall  be  able  to  gather  around  them  the  elders  and  the 
brethren,  and  that  they  should  have  their  support,  their 
sympathy  and  their  alms.  We  have  been  referred  to  the 
Apostolic  practice,  and  we  have  been  told,  almost  in  so 
many  words,  that  the  Divine  institution  of  the  Episcopate 
required  simply  that  a  man  should  be  consecrated  to  the 
Office  and  then  sent  forth  without  scrip  and  without  staff. 
I  ask  any  gentleman  upon  the  floor  of  this  House  whether 
there  ever  was  a  time  from  the  days  of  the  Apostles  down 
to  the  present  when  the  first  care  of  the  Church  was  not  to 
provide  for  the  support  of  the  Episcopate  ?  A  gentle- 
man on  my  left  referred  to  Bingham.  I  looked  at  the 
passage  this  morning.  I  knew  it  was  there.  Every  one 
knows  that  from  the  time  of  the  Apostles  down- — the 
fourth  of  the  oblation,  of  what  we  call  the  offertory — 
brought  in  and  laid  upon  the  altar  every  Lord's  Day,  was 
given  for  the  support  of  the  Bishop ;  and  I  challenge  any 
man  upon  this  floor  to  point  me  to  a  single  instance  from 
the  time  of  the  Apostles,  from  the  time  miracles  ceased  in 
the  Church  Catholic,  where  this  rule  has  not  been  observed. 
Why,  sir,  the  Lord  hath  ordained  that  those  who  preach 
the  Gospel  should  live  by  the  Gospel.  What  instruction 
do  we  give  our  people  in  the  Offertory  of  the  Church  : 
"Who  goeth  to  warfare  at  any  time  of  his  own  cost?" 
They  are  the  words  of  St.  Paul  himself  "  Who  planteth  a. 
vineyard  and  eateth  not  the  fruit  thereof?  Or  who  feedeth 
a  flock,  and  eateth  not  of  the  milk  of  the  flock? 

I  claim  that  it  has  been  the  settled  rule  of  the  Church 
Catholic  from  the  primitive  Church  down  to  the  present 
that  the  first  care  was  the  support  of  the  Bishop.  What 
was  the  Bishop  wanted  for  ?  He  was  wanted  to  guide  his 
Diocese,  to  give  the  best  powers  oj  his  mind  to  the  consid- 
eration of  the  great  questions  which  came  up  for  the  de- 
cision of  the  Church  ;  and  he  was  wanted  for  his  prayers. 
To  hear  some  men,  you  would  suppose  that  all  that  a  Bishop 
was  wanted  for  was  to  go  about  from  parish  to  parish  and 
from  house  to  house  and  hold  converse  with  his  people.  I 
hold  that  he  has  higher  duties  than  these  in  the  study  and  the  ' 
closet ;  and  woe  to  the  Church  when  you  have  Bishops  who 
do  not  study,  and  who  can  not  think,  and  whose  prayers 
are  few  and  hurried. 

I  was  speaking  of  the  points  in  which  we  agree  and  those  in 
which  we  differ.  We  all  agree  that  the  Episcopate  is  necessa- 
ry for  the  welfare  of  the  Church,  and  we  all  agree  that  it  is  de- 
sirable that  the  Episcopate  and  the  dioceses  should  be  extend- 
ed from  time  to  time,  just  so  far  as  the  needs  of  the  Church  de- 
mand. There  is  no  difference  at  all  upon  these  points. 
Some  of  us  think  that  something  more  is  necessary  than 
the  consecration  of  Bishops.  I  have  already  adverted  to 
the  fact  that  from  the  times  of  the  primitive  Church  the 
rule  has  been  established  that  the  Bishop  should  be  support- 
ed. We  are  the  daughter  of  the  Church  of  England.  We 
owe  to  that  Church  a  great  debt  of  gratitude.  We  may 
learn,  Mr.  President,  from  the  course  of  procedure  of  tha; 
venerable  Church.  It  is  true  that  from  her  connection  with 
the  State,  and  from  the  way  in  which  she  is  fettered  by  the 
State,  there  are  many  things  in  regard  to  which  her  exam- 
ple and  her  precepts  may  not  be  applicable  to  us ;  but 
touching  all  those  points  which  look  to  the  life  of  the 
Church,  I  hold  that  this  Church  can  never  turn  away  from 


the  example. of  the  Church  of  England.  I  chanced  to  be  in 
England  in  1841,  just  at  the  time  when  the  great  move- 
ment began  for  the  colonial  Bishoprics — a  movement 
which  has  done  more  to  strengthen  the  cause  of  Christ 
throughout  the  world  than  any  other  movement  for  the  last 
two  generations.  The  Bishops  decided  that  a  colonial  fund 
should  be  established,  ^tnd  the  Bishops  sent  out.  From  that 
time  to  the  present  the  work  has  been  going  on,  until  now 
you  find  all  over  the  globe.  Bishops  of  the  Anglican  Church 
at  work  efficiently.  What  was  the  principle  ?  ,  Not  to  send 
forth  or  consecrate  a  Bishop  until  a  decent  support  was  se- 
cured for  him.  Not  a  great  sum,  but  a  sum  sufficient  to 
relieve  bim  from  all  anxiety  about  his  daily  bread — a  sum 
sufficient  to  enable  him  to  go  forth  with  mind  and  heart 
unfettered  and  untranimeled.  Let  us  look  across  the  bor- 
der to  our  Canadian  brethren  ;  we  may  learn  something 
from  them.  A  few  years  ago  it  was  proposed  to  divide  the 
Diocese  of  Toronto  into  three  dioceses.  The  venerable 
man  then  at  the  head  of  the  diocese,  now  translated  to  his 
rest — one  of  the  wisest,  and  one  of  the  noblest  Bishops  the 
Anglican  communion  ever  had — what  did  he  say  about  this 
matter  of  division?  He  gave  hia  consent  at  once  that  the 
two  new  dioceses  should  be  formed — the  Diocese  of  Huron 
and  that  of  Ontario — but  not  to  come  into  existence  until  a  de- 
cent support  for  the  Episcopate  was  provided.  So  that  from 
the  earliest  times  down,  all  through  the  history  of  the  Church, 
has  this  principle  been  recognized.  And  what  has  been  the 
result  in  that  Communion?  Why,  sir,  you  never  hear  of  a 
colonial  Bishop  spending  his  time  teaching  school  to  get  his 
daily  bread,  frittering  away  his  precious  time  at  the  school- 
master's desk.  We  have  heard  of  that  in  this  country,  and 
we  have  seen  it  to  our  shame,  and  the  Church  has  known  it 
to  her  great  loss. 

One  of  the  objections  which  has  been  made  to  the  plan  of 
the  committee  is,  that  it  indicates  a  great  want  of  faith  that 
this  Church  should  say  that  the  Bishop  of  any  new  diocese, 
created  out  of  an  old  one,  should  not  be  consecrated  until 
this  Convention  has  satisfactory  assurance  that  he  will  be 
supported.  Tliat,  it  is  said,  indicates  a  great  want  of  faith. 
What  is  faith  ?  It  is  trust  in  the  promises  of  Almighty  God, 
and  readiness  to  obey  all  His  commandments.  What  com- 
mand is  there  of  Almighty  God,  or  what  arrangement  is 
there  of  His  in  regard  to  this  matter  of  the  Bishops  and 
clergy  of  His  Church,  save  that  contained  in  His  Word  to 
which  reference  has  been  made  ?  If  that  is  the  Divine  or- 
dinance, that  they  who  preach  the  Gospel  shall  live  of  the 
Gospel — that  the  Bishops  in  the  Church  shall  be  supported 
by  the  Church,  where  is  the  want  of  faith  in  asking  that 
the  Church  shall  walk  in  the  line  indicated  by  Almighty 
God  and  His  Word  ?  That  the  Laity  shall  be  told—"  Here 
is  your  duty  clearly  written  upon  the  pages  of  Divine  inspir- 
ation. Do  that  duty,  and  you  shall  have  the  blessed  privi- 
lege which  you  seek."  I  have  heard  this  cry  of  faith  often 
raised ;  have  known  it  to  be  raised  by  young,  ardent  and 
enthusiastic  minds.  I  believe  it  to  have  been  raised  hon- 
estly and  conscientiously  ;  but  I  contend  it  will  not  stand 
the  test  of  examination.  Do  you  ask  your  clergy  to  act  up-  > 
on  any  such  notion  of  faith  ?  Have  you  asked  your  mis- 
sionaries to  act  upon  such  a  notion  of  faith  as  that?  And 
will  you  ask  your  Bishops  to  act  upon  that  idea  of  faith? 
to  come  forward  and  kneel  down  and  receive  the  imposition 


65 


of  hands,  and  assume  the  fearful   responsibility  of  a  Bishop 
in  the    Church  of  God,   and  then  go  out   and  depend  upon 
the  chance  charity  of  their  fellow  Christians,  and  wondering 
how  they  shall  be  supported?     If  that  is  faith, then  I  have  to 
go  to  .school  again  and  renew  my  study  in  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, and  in  the  catechism.     It  is  not  faith  ;  it  i.s  presump- 
tion ;  and  if  we  act  upon  that,  we  shall  most   assuredly  be 
covered  with  shame.       I   have  known  wise  and  intelligent 
men  in    the  Church    who  have   attem|)ted   to  act  upon  this 
idea  of  faith,  and  have  seen  them  covered  with  misfortune 
and  pecuniary  responsibility,  and  loaded  down  with  agony 
for  years  by  so  doing  ;  and  I  do  not  desire  to  see  any  one 
of  our  Bishops    again  placed  iu  this    position.     Again,  we 
are  told  that  Bishops  must  be  men  of  self-denial,  and  that 
to  provide   comfortable  support  in  this  way  is  to  intimate 
that  you  do  not  expect  self-denial  on  the  part  of  your  Bish- 
ops.    I  do  not  know  what  may  be  the  experience  of  others, 
but  my  own  experience  and  observation   lead   me    to   say, 
that  I  never  yet  have  known  any  Bishop  in  this  Church  who 
has  not  been  obliged  to  exercise  great  self-denial.     I  think 
you  will  find  greater  equality    among  the  Bishops  in    point 
of  support   than    persons  looking   from    the    outside  only 
would  be   apt  to  imagine.     I   have  never  known  a  Bishop 
who  has   not  been    obliged  to  exercise    self-denial.     I  ven- 
ture to  predict  there  never  will  be  a  Bishop  in  this  Church 
who  will    never  be   called   upon  to   exercise    self-denial — 
whose  support  will  not  be  meagre,  not  only  when  compared 
with  gentlemen  at  the  head  of  other  professions,  but  with 
men  who  are  working  at  your  looms  and  on  your  railroads. 
The  Bishops  are  not  only    expected  to    be  gentlemen,  but 
to  Uve  like  gentlemen,  and  to  act  as  gentlemen ;  and  they 
are    expected  to    do  this   upon   a   miserable   pittance,  nine 
times  out  of  ten,  which  the   men   who  work  for   your  rich 
men  would  scorn  to  take  as  their  wages.     I  know  scores  of 
presbyters,  and  many  Bishops,  who  not  only  are  gentlemen, 
but  live  as  gentlemen,  and   whom  the    whole    world  recog- 
nize as  living  as  gentlemen,  but  who  are    obliged,   in   order 
to  do  that,  to  resort  to  a  close  economy,  which  the  common 
workman    is   not  bound   to  exercise.     It  pleased  the  Great 
Head  of  the  Church  to  lay,  at  the  beginning,  the  cross  upon 
those  whom  He  called  to  go  forth  and  preach  the  Gospel  in 
His  name  ;  and  that  heritage  has  been  handed  down  from 
generation  to  generation.     Thank  God  that  that  heritage  is 
ours.   It  is  our  glory  ;  it  will  be  their  comfort,  and  through 
God's  mercy  the  salvation  of  scores  of  the  clergy,  and  will 
redound  to    the  welfare  of  the  Church    throughout  the  un- 
ending ages  of  eternity.     You  need  not  be  afraid  that  your 
Bishops  will  not  be  men  of  self-denial.     The  world  will  have 
to  change,  society,  and  all  the  circumstances  around  us,  be- 
fore that  can  be  the  case. 

Another  objection  rai.sed  by  the  gentleman  from  Tennes- 
see, and  repeated  this  morning  by  the  gentleman  from 
Western  New  York  is,  that  any  such  provision  as  this  is  an 
interference  with  the  rights  of  the  diocese.  Their  view  is 
that  we  assume  to  legislate  upon  the  subject  of  salary,  and 
then  others  have  objected  that  the  language  of  this  proviso 
is  exceedingly  broad,  vague  and  indefinite.  It  is  indefinite 
and  broad,  and  was  made  so  on  purpose ;  for,  we  had  no 
idea,  whatever,  of  introducing  any  proposition  into  this 
body  by  which  this  Convention  should  undertake  to  say 
you  .shall  pay  your  Bishop  so  much  salary.     We  never  in- 

9 


tended  to  say  it;  and  repudiate  altogether  the  idea  that  we 
meant  to  say  that  there  should  be  an  Episcopal  fund  out  of 
wliich  the   Bishop  shall   be  paid.     It  was  left  open  on  pur- 
pose, our  simple  idea  being    to   bring  before  the  minds  of 
this  Church  that    what  was  needed    for  the  prosperity  and 
growth  of  the  Church  was  simply  provision  for  the  support 
of  the  Episcopate — some  arrangement  by  which  a  Bishop 
should  not  be  obliged  to   engage  in  a  secular  business  tor 
his  bread.     The  honorable  gentleman  from  Tennessee  spoke 
of  the  division  of  Tennessee  into  three  parts.     He  said  if  it 
could  be  done  and  we  had  a   Bishop  in  Knoxville,  he  could 
be  surely  supported.     If  that  is  the  case,  then,  I  apprehend, 
he  can  make   it  perfectly  patent  to  any  committee  on  the 
part  of  this  House ;  he  can  render  it  evident  to  this  Ilou.se 
that  that   is   the  fact,  and  that  being  the   fact,  the  House 
would  give  its  consent.     I  do  not  know  how  it  may  be  with 
others,  but  when  I  come  up  to  this  House  I  do  not  regard 
it  as  merely  an  assemblage  of  gentlemen  coming  up  to  leg- 
islate in  regard  to  this  and  other  matters.    There  is  another 
and  a  higher  view  to  be  taken  of  the  functions  of  this  body. 
It  is  called  in  the  prayer  which  we  offer  from  day  to  day  a 
council   of  the   Church,  and  we   pray  that  the    Holy  Spirit 
may  guide  our  deliberations.     Are  those  mere  words  ?  or 
do  we  believe  that  in  this    body  the   Great    Head    of  the 
Church,  by  His  Spirit,  is  presiding,  guiding,  moulding,  and 
governing  the  minds  of  its  members?     If  so,  as  I  believe, 
.  and  if  I  did  not  believe  it  I  should  not  value  the  honor  of  a 
seat  on  this  floor  very  much — if  we  do  believe  it,  then  can 
■  we  not  trust  this  body  with  the  settlement  of  a  question  like 
this,  without   supposing   that   they   are   going   to    treat   il 
merely  as  a  secular  convention  ?     I  trust  this  body  as  I  trust 
.the  Church,  because  I  believe  it  to  be  a  branch  of  the  great 
Catholic   body,  and   because    I    believe  this  body  to  be  a 
Council  of  that  Church.     I  am  willing  to  trust  this  and  simi- 
lar questions  to  this  House,  to  be  acted  upon  as  they  shall 
think  best,  upon  the  broad,  general  principles  of  the  Gos- 
pel.    These  points  give  me,  as  an  individual,  no  manner  of 
concern,  whatever.     When  I  look  back  to  General  Conven- 
tions which  I  remember  when  I  was  a  boy — I  have  always 
felt  the  deepest  interest  in  them,  and  have  retained  a  lively 
rec^lection  of   what  has   passed — I  have   not  yet  seen  the 
day,  in  the  most  trying  times  of  the  Church,  in  seasons  of 
the  greatest  difficulty  and  perplexity,  when,  though  sorrow 
and  darkness  brooded  for  the  night,  joy  did  not  come  in  the 
morning.     I  have  never  yet  seen  the  day  when  clouds  have 
not   dispelled    and   the     Deputies    gone     home,    rejoicing 
on  their  way  ;  and  what   has  been  will  be,  if   we  arc  only 
faithful  to  our  trust. 

What  is  the  proposition  of  the  committee?  Wc  intro- 
duce great  changes  in  the  organic  law  of  the  Chm'ch  iu  re- 
gard to  the  creation  of  new  dioceses  and  the  appointment 
of  new  Bishops,  if  it  shall  plea.sc  this  House,  and  the  House 
of  Bishops  shall  concur.  Wc  strike  out — such  is  our  propo- 
sition— all  other  restrictions  from  the  Constitution  save 
three,  the  necessity  of  the  consent  of  the  Bishop  of  the  Di- 
ocese for  a  new  Diocese,  of  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese, 
and  of  the  General  Convention  ;  we  put  certain  restrictions 
into  a  canon,  which  we  propose  for  adoption  hereafter, 
where  they  can  be  altered  from  time  to  time,  according  to 
the  needs  of  the  Church,  and  as  the  e.vperience  of  the  Church 
shall  point  out  the  importance  of  so  doing,  without  waiting 


66 


three  years.  We  take  away  every  restriction  save  the  three  I 
have  mentioned,  and  this  new  one.  I  do  not  wonder  that 
the  proposition  has  occasioned  a  great  deal  of  debate  ;  but 
I  now  leave  it  to  the  thoughtful  minds  of  the  members  of 
this  Convention.  Whatever  may  be  the  decision  of  this 
House  and  this  Convention  touching  this  proposed  altera- 
tion in  the  Constitution,  I  shall  look  forward  to  the  future  of 
this  Church  with  renewed  hopes,  with  higher  expectations 
than  any  I  have  yet  cherished.  To  see  us  all  together 
again  from  the  East  and  the  West,  from  the  North  and 
South  ;  to  be  able  to  take  each  other  by  the  hand  and  hold 
sweet  converse  together,  comparing  our  different  local 
views  with  reference  to  the  work  of  the  Church  ;  communi- 
cating our  hopes,  aspirations,  and  expectations — this  is  not 
only  most  delightful  and  most  glorious,  but  it  certainly  doe.'* 
stimulate,  in  my  mind,  higher  hopes  of  the  future  of  this 
Church.  And  when  1  look  around  this  Convention  and 
take  note  how,  since  the  day  when  we  first  came  together, 
not  one  unkind  word  has  fallen  from  the  lips  of  anybody, 
how  there  has  been  presented  a  remarkable  degree  of  for- 
bearance, I  thank  God  and  take  courage.  We  have  passed 
through  a  great  crisis.  We  are  now  upon  the  verge  of  great 
movements  for  the  future.  I  have  no  doubt,  whatever  may 
be  the  decision  upon  this  case,  that  these  movements  will 
be  onward  and  onward ;  and  by  whatever  means  it  shall 
please  Almighty  God  to  bring  about  the  result,  the  result 
will  come  that  this  branch  of  the  Church  shall  be  a  praise" 
and  glory  in  the  whole  earth.      God  grant  it. 

Hon.  Mr.  Sheffey,  of  Virginia  (long  a  speaker  of  the 
House  of  Delegates  of  Virginia),  stated  his  vievps  as  to 
the  parliamentary  order  of  taking  the  vote. 

A  motion  to  strike  out  the  pecuniary  proviso  was 
lost,  the  vote  being  by  dioceses  and  orders. 

A  motion  to  adjourn  was  negatived. 

The  pending  amendment  to  the  resolution  of  the  com- 
mittee was  withdrawn. 

The  President  : — The  question  recurs  upon  the  adop- 
tion of  the  whole  resolution. 

Judge  Comstock — moved  to  strike  out  of  the  first 
proposition  of  the  committee  all  after  the  word  Until, 
and  insert  these  words,  so  that  it  shall  read  "until  the 
General  Convention  shall  be  satisfied  that  the  Bishop 
of  the  said  new  diocese  shall  receive  a  competent  sup- 
port." 

Rev.  Dk.  Pierce — offered  verbal  amendments,  ac- 
cepted by  the  committee. 

Mr.  SHEFFEY-raised  the  point  of  order,  that  the  House 
having  refused  to  strike  out,  precludes  a  subsequent 
motion  to  strike  out  and  insert. 

Which  point  of  order  was  sustained  by  the  President, 
and  Judge  Comstock's  motion  was  declared  out  of  order. 

Dr.  Wheat  : — I  understand  the  President  to  say 
that  the  vote  is  now  to  be  taken  upon  the  whole 
report,  including  the  canon. 

The  President  : — We  have  nothing  to  do  with  the 
canon. 

Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin — called  for  the  vote  by  dioceses 
and  orders. 

The  resolution  was  then  adopted  by  the  following 


vote  :  Clerical,  Ayes,  27  ;  Nays,  3  ;  Divided,  5 ;  Lay, 
Aj^es,  27;  Nays,  3;  Divided,  1. 

Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin  : — I  move  that  the  remainder  of 
the  report  of  the  committee  be  referred  to  the  next 
Convention. 

Rev.  Dk.  Haight  : — I  move  that  it  be  sent  to  the 
House  of  Bishops  for  information. 

The  President  being  about  to  take  the  vote  upon 
motion  to  refer  the  remainder  of  the  report  to  the  next 
General  Convention  as  unfinished  business — 

Rev.  Mr.  Rogers  said  : — I  believe  the  committee  are 
prepared  to  make  that  [canon]  satisfactory  to  Texas  [in 
respect  to  number  of  parishes  and  clergy  in  the  new  and 
the  old  diocese]  which  needs  it  more  than  any  other  dio- 
cese. I  do  not  wish  that  transferred  to  the  next  Con- 
vention ;  and  I  ask  that  this  Convention  may  pass  upon 
it  :  they  can  do  it  as  well  as  the  next. 

On  motion  this  House  adjourned  to  10  o'clock,  a.  m., 
to-morrow. 

TENTH    day's    PROCEEDINGS. 

Saturday,  Oct.  17th,  1868. 

The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

Morning  Prayer  was  said  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Stubbs, 
of  New  Jersey,  and  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Jacob  L.  Clark,  of 
Connecticut. 

The  Benediction  was  pronounced  by  Bishop  Atkin- 
son, of  North  Carolina. 

The  journal  of  yesterdaj-'s  proceedings  was  read  and 
approved. 

On  motion,  members  of  the  Board  of  Missions  were 
invited  to  seats  within  the  body  of  the  church. 

Reports  of  Standing  Committees  being  in  order, 

Rev.  Dr.  IIaight — from  the  Committee  on  Canons, 
reported  an  amendment  to  Canon  9,  Title  I,  substituting 
"  one  year"  instead  of  "  six  months,"  as  the  required 
time  of  probation  to  be  required  of  ministers  not  of  this 
Church  [i.  e.,  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church]  candi- 
dates for  admission  to  this  Church. 

Rev.  Dr.  Stcbes — favored  rather  decreasing  to  six 
months  the  time  of  probation  (one  year)  now  required 
of  the  ministers  of  the  Church  of  England. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight — said  that  an  increased  time  of  pro- 
bation for  Roman  Catholic  ministers  was  necessary  to 
guard  against  imposture,  and  allow  ample  time  to 
obtain  testimonials. 

Mr.  Wallace,  of  Missouri — stated  an  illustrative 
case  of  application  of  a  Roman  Catholic  priest  for  admis- 
sion to  this  Church,  arguing  the  propriety  of  increase 
of  the  time  of  probation. 

The  resolution  was  adopted. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haigdt — reported  from  the  Committee  on 
Canons : 

(1)  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  change  Clause  59,  Sec. 
7,  Canon  13,  Title  1,  so  as  to  make  the  missionary  bishop 
of  course  the  Diocesan  Bishop  of  a  diocese  created 
within  his  district.  The  committee  were  discharged 
from  further  consideration. 


\ 


67 


(2)  With  reference  to  a  referred  memorial,  that  the 
amendment  to  Canon  11,  already  reported,  was  all  that 
was  now  expedient.     Submitted,  without  an)'  action. 

Rev.  Dr.  Robeht  A.  Hallam,  of  Connecticut,  Chair- 
man ot  the  Committee  on  the  State  of  the  Church,  read 
the  following  report  and  resolution: 

EKPORT. 

The  Committee  on  the  State  of  the  Church,  in  presenting 
their  report  to  the  (Jeneral  Convention,  ate  happy  to  find 
themselves  relieved  from  the  embarrassment  under  which 
their  predecessors  have  labored  in  the  last  two  General  Con- 
ventions in  consequence  of  the  civil  distractions  of  tlie 
country.  Again  it  is  possible,  with  devout  thanks  to  Al- 
mighty God  be  it  said,  to  present  a  view  of  the  whole  Church 
in  all  parts  of  the  land.  In  the  present  General  Convention 
all  the  dioceses  of  the  country  are  once  more  represented, 
aud  from  them  all  statements  of  their  condition  have  been 
received,  which  are  embodied  in  this  report. 

From  these  statements,  and  from  such  other  sources  of 
knowledge  as  have  been  within  their  reach,  the  comiuittee 
are  enabled  to  preseut  a  view  of  the  state  of  the  Church 
that  exhibits  abundant  reasons  for  encouragement  aud  grat- 
itude. In  every  part  of  the  Church  there  are  signs  of 
prosperity  and  success.  Especially  gratifying  are  the  evi- 
dences of  an  increased  zeal  for  missionary  efforts  and  the 
salvation  of  men,  evinced  in  larger  contributions  and  in 
more  earnest  work  of  clergymen  and  laymen.  The  laity  of 
the  Church  liave  awakened  to  a  livelier  sense  of  their  obliga- 
tion to  give  and  labor  as  felfow-workers  with  their  ministers 
unto  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  There  is  an  increase  of  be- 
nevolent effort  in  various  departments  of  action  ;  in  the  in- 
struction of  the  ignorant  and  the  succor  of  human  want 
and  suffering  and  in  the  use  of  appropriate  means  to  ndti- 
gate  the  ills  of  life  aud  promote  the  highest  interests  of 
men.  The  committee  rejoice  to  be  able  to  say  that  in 
their  judgment  this  Church  is  becoming  more  and  more  a 
working  Church. 

From  some  parts  of  the  land,  to  be  sure,  comes  up  the 
sad  complaint  of  devastation  and  impoverishment.  But 
these  complaints  are  tempered  by  a  Christian  patience, 
an  unshaken  faith  in  God  and  a  firm  determination  to 
strengthen  the  things  that  remain,  and  rebuild  upon  the  old 
foundations,  as  God  shall  give  them  power,  the  walls  of  Je 
rusalem  that  are  broken  down :  while  the  sympathy  and 
assistance  that  this  want  and  suffering  have  called  forth 
have  bound  the  parts  of  the  country  together  in  stronger 
bonds  and  rendered  the  unity  of  the  Church  firmer  aud 
more  complete,  a  more  living  and  conscious  priuciple. 

And  this  unity,  the  committee  beheve,  has  been  strengthe 
ened,  as  by  this,  so  by  other  causes  also.  The  occasional 
trials  to  which  it  has  beeu  subjected,  and  abnormal  tenden- 
cies that  have  manifested  themselves  here  aud  there, 
whether  by  excess  or  defect,  have  served  to  illustrate  this 
unity  and  also  to  establish  it.  The  great  mass  of  church- 
men are  one  in  heart,  and,  as  to  all  necessary  things,  in 
judgment  and  purpose  also.  With  the  Church  as  she  is,  as 
our  fathers  have  handed  her  down  to  us,  they  are  content; 
aud  while  willing  to  tolerate  minor  differences  ol  opinion 
aud  practice  in  one  another,  are  striving  together  for  the 
defence  of  the  Gospel,  in  nothing  terrified  by  their  adversa- 


ries. Beholders  from  without  may  have  thought  divergen- 
cies and  repeUencies  within  strong  enough  to  rend  her  apart ; 
but  she  has  never  allowed  herself  to  doubt  that  the  bonds 
which  hold  her  together  are  far  stronger  and  more  effi- 
cient. 

The  success  of  our  missionary  and  frontier  bishops  and 
their  faithful  feUow-laborers  in  planting  the  cross  in  the  wild 
and  rapidly  growing  regions  committed  to  their  care  since 
the  Church  last  met  in  council,  is  a  fact  too  pleasing  to  be 
omitted  in  this  report.  For  once  this  Church  has  beeu  in 
advance  of  the  stream  of  population  aud  has  moved  on 
abreast  of  its  swelling  current.  And  she  is  blessed  in  the 
deed,  and  is  making  lierself  effectually  felt  amid  the  growing 
mass  of  emigrants  and  settlers,  and  even  in  the  realm  of 
filthy  Mormonism,  and,  to  some  small  extent  at  least,  among 
the  wronged  and  neglected  aborigines. 

Since  the  last  General  Convention  the  ranks  of  our  epi.s- 
copate  have  been  thinned  by  the  demise  of  six  of  our 
Bishops — The  Right  Rev.  John  Henry  Hopkins,  D.  D.,  LL. 
D.,  Bishop  of  Vermont,  and  at  the  time  of  his  death  presid- 
ing Bishop  of  the  House  of  Bi.shops;  the  Right  Rev.  Stephen 
Elliott,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  Georgia ;  the  Right  Rev.  Cicero 
Stephens  Hawks,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  Missouri ;  the  Right  Rev. 
George  Burgpss,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  Maine  ;  the  Right  Rev. 
Francis  Huger  Rutledge,  D.  I).,  Bishop  of  Florida;  and  the 
Right  Rev.  Thomas  Fielding  Scott,  D.  D.,  Missionary  Bish. 
op  of  Oregon  and  Washington  Territory.  But  the  loss  has 
been  more  than  made  good  in  number  by  the  addition  of  no 
less  than  fourteen  to  the  number  of  our  bishops,  a  number 
far  outstripping  the  additions  in  any  like  period  of  our 
former  history.  They  are  as  follows : — The  Right  Rev. 
Richard  Hooker  Wilnier,  D.  D.,  consecrated  by  bishops  of 
this  Church  during  the  temporary  suspension  of  communi- 
cation with  the  Southern  portion  of  the  country,  and  recog- 
nized as  Bishop  of  Alabama  upon  his  compliance  with  the 
conditions  prescribed  by  the  last  General  Convention ;  the 
Right  Rev.  Robert  Harper  Clarkson,  D.  D.,  Missionary 
Bishop  of  Nebi'aska  and  Dacota ;  the  Right  Rev.  George 
Maxwell  RandaU,  D.  D.,  Missionary  Bishop  of  Colorado  and 
Wyoming;  the  Right  Rev.  Johu  Barrett  Keifoot,  D.  D., 
Bishop  of  Pittsburgh  ;  the  Right  Rev.  Channing  Moore  Wil- 
liams, D.  D.,  Missionary  Bishop  in  China  and  Japan  ;  the 
Right  Rev.  Joseph  Pere  Bell  Wilmer,  D.  B.,  Bi,<hop  of 
Louisiana ;  the  Right  Rev.  George  David  Cummins,  D.  D., 
Assistant  Bishop  of  Kentucky ;  the  Right  Rev.  William 
Edniond  Anuitage,  D.  D.,  A.ssistant  Bishop  of  WLscousin  ; 
the  Right  Rev.  Henry  Adams  Neely,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of 
Maine ;  the  Right  Rev.  Daniel  Sylvester  Tuttle,  D.  D.,  Mis- 
sionary Biiihop  of  Montana  and  Utah  ;  the  Right  Rev.  John 
Freeman  Young,  D.  D.,  Bisho|)  of  Florida;  the  Right  Rev. 
John  Waters  Beckwith,  D.  D.,  Bishop  of  Georgia;  theRighi 
Rev.  Francis  M.  Whittle,  D.  D.,  Assistant  Bishop  of  Vir 
ginia,  and  the  Right  Rev.  William  Henry  Augustus  Bissell, 
D.  D.,  Bishop  of  Vermont. 

The  committee  have  again  encouutered  embarrassmeui 
and  delay  in  the  execution  of  their  work,  in  consequence  oi 
the  imperfect  condition  in  which  the  tabular  digests  requii- 
cd  by  the  canon  from  the  different  dioceses  have  come  be- 
fore them  and  llic  want  of  promptness  in  preparing  and 
presenting  them.  The  committee  venture  to  suggest  that 
this  difficulty   would   be  much  diminished  il"  in  all  the  Dio- 


68 


cesau  Conventions  there  were  a  committee  on  the  state  of 
the  Church,  or  a  tabular  summary  of  the  parochial  reports 
were  printed  in  the  journals  of  conventions. 

The  reports  of  the  respective  dioceses  are  made  a  part  of 
this  report  and  are  herewith  presented. 

In  conclusion  the  committee  recommend  the  adoption  of 
the  foUowhig  resolution  : — 

Resolved,  That  the  view  of  the  state  of  the  Church  here 
presented  be  transmitted  to  the  House  of  Bishops,  asking 
its  prayers  and  blessing,  and  requesting  it  to  prepare  and 
cause  to  be  published  a  pastoral  letter  to  the  members  of 
the  Church. 

ROBERT  A.   HALLAM,  Chairman. 

Gborge  D.  Gillespik,  Secretary. 

Rev.  Dr.  Littlejohn  ; — I  desire  to  call  the  attention 
of  the  House  to  the  character  of  the  report  just  submitted. 
I  consider  it  in  its  way  a  model.  Although  brief  it 
touches  most  happily  upon  every  leading  subject  which 
interests  the  Chui'ch,  presenting  an  exceedingly  satisfac- 
tory total  result,  all  in  a  style  which  my  neighbor  of 
accurate  tastes  (Gov.  Fish)  has  aptly  said  was  like  a 
polished  crystal.  A  document  so  brief  yet  comprehen- 
sive, so  happy  in  tempei'  and  faultless  in  style,  is  certain- 
ly a  subject  of  congratulation. 

The  resolution  of  the  above  report  was  then  adopted ; 
and  by  subsequent  motion  temporarily  referred,  prior  to 
being  sent  to  the  House  of  Bishops,  to  Committee  on 
Christian  Education. 

Rev.  Hiram  W.  Beeus,  of  Wisconsin — offered  the 
following  preamble  and  resolutions,  the  second  resolution 
(moved  by  a  deputy  from  New  Hampshire)  having  been 
accepted  by  Mr.  Beers. 

Whereas  our  Church  is  charged  by  its  Divine  head  with 
the  duty  of  imparting  to  all  the  people  of  this  country  the 
Gospel  of  Salvation  ;  and  whereas  the  growth  of  the  nation 
and  the  increase  of  its  population  have  thus  far  vastly  tran- 
scended both  the  ordinary  and  missionary  arrangements  of 
the  Church,  so  that  to-day  there  are  thousands  of  cities  and 
towns  and  hundreds  of  interior  counties  scattered  through 
the  States  where  the  voice  of  the  Church  is  not  heard  and 
the  presence  of  her  ministers  is  unknown ;  and  whereas  it 
would  require  a  five-fold  greater  number  of  regular  clergy 
men  than  are  now  in  orders,  and  an  additional  outlay  of 
millions  for  the  next  twenty-live  years  to  biing  the  scale  of 
our  rehgious  operations  and  the  measure  of  our  spiritual 
provisions  up  to  a  high  standard  of  our  Catholic  claims,  and 
the  solemn  magnitude  of  our  Catholic  obligations;  and 
whereas  it  is  the  peculiarity  of  this  country  and  age  that 
sentiments, beliefs,  institutions  and  usages, seeking  to  possess 
and  mould  the  minds  and  hearts  and  lives  of  the  people, 
must  appeal  to,  and  operate  through  the  children ;  and 
whereas  the  Christian  school  is,  under  (iod,  the  one  instru- 
mentality and  channel  through  which  Christian  sentiments, 
beliefs,  iu.stitutions  and  usages  can  be  brought  to  bear 
directly^  systematically  and  continuously  upou  the  children 
of  this  country,  so  that  they  shall  be  trained  in  a  manner 
befitting  "members  of  Christ,  the  children  of  God  and  the 
inheritors  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven :"  and  whereas  the 
Christian  school  would  find  a  field  of  usefulness  and  a 
ready  welcome  iu  places  where  honest  prejudices  would 
stand  hi  the  way  of  Church  woik  by  the  regular  clergy 
through  the  ordinary  parochial  organizations;  and  whereas 
existing  theological  schools,  general  and  local,  fall  far  short 
of  supplying  the  constantly  increasing  demand  lor  clergy- 
men for  the  regular  parochial  work  of  the  Church ;  there- 
fore, in   solemn  view  of  the  duty  of  this  Church  to  God  as 


the  Steward  of  His  Grace,  of  life  and  salvation,  and  in  an 
honest  endeavor  to  meet  our  responsibilities,  it  is  hereby 

Resolved,  That  this  House,  the  House  of  Bishops  concur- 
ring, recommends  the  establishment  of  Christian  schools  in 
every  parish  where  it  may  be  practicable. 

Resolved,  That  the  work  of  extending  and  planting  the 
Church  iu  cities  and  towns,  where  it  is  already  established, 
can  be  carried  on  economically  and  successfully  by  opening 
grammar  schools  in  chapel  school-houses,  where  the  children 
can  be  trained  in  learning  and  religion  through  the  week, 
and  assembled  with  parents  and  others  on  Sundays  for  Di- 
vine worship.  , 

Resolved,  That  iu  order  to  provide  competent  principals 
or  heads  for  these  schools,  and  especially  for  the  mission 
grammar  schools,  we  recommend  the  establishment  in  every 
diocese  of  a  traiuing  school  for  those  who  desire  to  become 
teaching  deacons  in  the  Church  of  God,  and  for  the  edu- 
cation and  traiuing  of  youths  and  young  men  who  may  wish 
to  devote  their  minds  to  the  work  of  God,  by  acting  as  lay 
teachers  in  this  Church. 

Resolved,  That  the  subject  of  a  training-house  for  female 
teachers  in  each  diocese  and  a  sisterhood  of  such,  under 
wise  regulations,  voluntarily  bound  for  definite  periods  to 
go  where  the  Church  needs  them,  and  to  train,  in  the  schools 
of  the  Church,  our  children  for  Christ,  as  a  work  of  love  and 
mercy  to  their  souls,  is  one  of  vast  importance  and  is  com 
mended  to  the  prayerful  consideration  of  churchmen. 

Rev.  Mr.  Beehs  : — Before  moving  the  reference  of 
these  resolutions  to  the  Committee  on  Christian  Edu- 
cation, I  would  like  to  make  a  few  remarks  :n  relation 
to  the  matter  contained  in  the  resolutions.  Our  theory 
is  that  we  are  a  branch  of  the  Church  Catholic  in  these 
United  States.  I  suppose  that  there  is  not  a  clergyman 
or  intelligent  layman  in  the  Church,  that  has  not  often 
been  perplexed  from  the  difficulty  of  reconciling  our 
magnificent  theory  with  the  actual  practical  condition 
of  attairs  in  the  Church.  Under  responsibility  to  give 
the  Gospel  to  all  we  do  not  give  it  to  one  in  five  hun- 
dred. And  probably  he  has  sometimes  thought  that  it 
is  the  business  of  conventions  and  committees  of  our 
Church  to  find  how  not  to  do  it,  to  constitute  of  them- 
selves a  circumlocution  office  that  shall  be  occupied  with 
splendid  success  in  the  work  of  endeavoring  to  contrive 
how  we  shall  not  go  outside  of  a  certain  circle  and  how 
we  shall  reach  no  result  that  has  not  been  reached  half  a 
century  or  seventy -five  years  ago.  We  need  not  be  sur- 
prised that  the  religious  world  outside  of  the  pale  of  the 
Church,  and  especially  that  the  world  of  irreligion 
outside  of  the  pale  of  the  Church,  are  incredulous  about 
the  grand  claims  put  forth  by  us.  We  need  not  be  surpris- 
ed that  when  they  hear  us  recite  in  unison  the  great 
Catholic  creeds  of  Divine  worship,  there  is  an  undercur- 
rent of  doubt  about  the  conviction  and  sincerity  with 
which  we  recite  these  formulas  of  faith,  because  they  see 
that  in  some  way  or  other,  if  we  are  the  Church  of  Christ 
in  this  land,  the  land  is  going  to  the  devil  as  fast  as  it 
can,  for  all  we  are  doing.  I  mean  outside  of  the  com- 
paratively limited  circle.  In  saying  this,  it  is  not  said 
that  the  ministry  and  laity  of  the  Church,  according 
to  the  instrumentalities  they  have  adopted  are  not  doing 
according  to  the  best  ability  that  God  has  given  them. 
But  the  question  arises  whether  there  are  not  Instru- 
mentalities within  our  reach  that  would   expedite  the 


69 


realization  of  our  grand  ideas  by  centuries,  and  wliich  it 

would  be  better  to  use  than  to  stick  to  the  old  tracks  and 
run  in  the  old  ruts  forever.  As  stated  in  one  of  the  pre- 
ambles, education  is  the  particular  vanity  of  the  Ameri- 
can people.  It  is  the  one  subject  about  which  there  is 
not  in  any  quarter  the  courage  to  raise  a  single  question. 
I  dd  not  care  what  kind  of  school  is  proposed,  there  is  no 
man,  especially  if  he  has  any  aspiration  to  office,  that 
dares  raise  a  question  about  that  being  the  finest  thing 
in  the  world.  And  1  say  this  for  the  purpose  of  bring- 
ing forward  this  consideration,  namely,  that  the  partic- 
ular ground  of  education  wliich  it  is  proposed  in  these 
resolutions  to  occupy,  and  which  is  open  for  the 
advantage  of  the  Church  and  the  salvation  of  souls,  is 
absolutely  unoccupied  in  all  this  laud  to-day.  [After 
speaking  of  tlie  Roniisli  schools,  of  the  difficulty  of  ex- 
tending the  Church  owing  to  the  prejudices  of  the  adult 
population,  of  the  importance  and  ease  of  impressing 
the  young,  and  of  the  advantage  of  having  a  teaching 
ministry  to  support  the  services  of  the  Church,  he  said:] 
In  this  way  I  have  come  to  the  settled  conviction  that 
if  the  Church  is  willing  to  take  this  instrumentality 
and  plant  herself  as  a  teaching  Church  in  towns  and 
cities  where  the  Church  does  not  exist,  there  will  be  no 
difficulty  in  laying  firm  her  foundations.  In  some  of 
the  dioceses  of  tlie  West,  there  are  a  hundred  towns  and 
cities,  the  smallest  of  which  has  a  population  of  a  thous- 
and, where  the  voice  of  the  Church  is  not  heard. 
There  is  one  diocese,  which  is  comparatively  well  occu- 
pied, and  in  which  Church  work  is  going  on  with  great 
vigor,  and  yet  it  has  fourteen  counties,  where  the  ser- 
vices of  this  Church  are  not  heard  at  all,  and  we  can 
not  do  any  better  by  the  ordinary  processes.  The 
teaching  side  of  the  Church  will  sustain  the  siile  that 
celebrates  the  Divine  service,  and  you  will  establish 
the  Church  in  a  community  in  a  few  years,  and  have 
all  the  elements  needful  to  go  on  with  the  work  of  the 
Church. 

On  motion  these  preambles  and  resolutions  were  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  Christian  Education. 

Two  messages,  No.s.  14  and  15  were  here  received 
from  the  House  of  Bishops. 

The  House  now  proceeded  to  (he  unfinished  business 
of  yesterday,  the  motion  of  Dr.  Goodwin  to  refer  the 
following  canon  reported  in  connection  with  amend- 
ment to  canon  11  (concerning  new  diocesesj  to  the  next 
General  Convention  as  unlinishcd  business. 

Resolved,  That  the  following  be  adopted  as  a  new 
canon,  to  be  section  four  of  Canon  six,  of  Title  three. 
No  new  diocese  shall  be  formed  which  shall  (•ontaiii  less 
than  six  parishes,  or  less  than  six  presbyters  who  have 
been  at  least  one  year  canonically  resident  within  the 
bounds  of  such  new  diocese  and  regularly  settled  in  a 
parish  or  congregation  therein,  and  (|ualihe<l  to  vote  for 
a  bishop.  Nor  shall  any  new  diocese  be  forniid  it 
thereby  any  existing  diocese  shall  be  reduced  so  as  to 
contain  less  than  twelve  parishes,  or  less  than  twelve 
presbyters,  who  have  been  residing  and  settled  and 
quahtied  as  above  mentioned. 


A  question  as  to  whether  the  reference  had  already 
been  agreed  to  was  discussed  sometime,  when  the 
President  decided  that  whatever  might Vhave  been  the 
parliamentary  effect  of  the  action  of  yesterday,  the 
House  had  not  intended  to  either  adopt  or  refer,  but 
had  simply  acted  upon  the  first  resolution  of  the  report 
of  the  committee. 

Mr.  McCkauv,  of  South  Carolina— opposed  the  ref 
erence,  and  claimed  that  as  the  subject  of  the  canon 
relating  to  the  organic  constitution  of  the  Convention, 
its  provisions  should  be  in  the  constitution. 

Judge  CoNYNGHAM — Concurred  in  these  views. 

Mr.  Columbus  Delano — opposed  the  reference  and 
claimed  that  it  not  only  could  but  should  be  acted  upon 
now,  so  that  the  restrictions  removed  from  the  consti- 
tution should  exist  somewhere  in  the  legislation  of  the 
Church. 

Gov.  Fish — moved  as  a  substitute  for  the  pending 
motion  the  following  resolution  : 

Resolved,  The  House  of  Bishops  concurring,  that  the 
following  ainendtnent  to  the  canons  be  adopted  to  take 
efl'ect  and  become  operative  on  the  adoption  and  rati- 
fication of  the  proposed  amendment  to  the  5th  article  of 
the  constitution  as  recommended  Ijy  the  Convention, 
IGth  Oct.  inst.  "  No  new  diocese,"  [&c.,  as  in  the  can- 
on above.] 

The  vote  upon  the  substitution  resulted  in  the  affirm- 
ative, when  the  resolution^was  adopted. 

On  motion  of  Rev.  Dr.  Alfi-ed  A.  Watson,  of  North 
Carolina,  the  Committee  on  Canons  were  instructed  to 
inquire  into  the  expediency  of  establishing  missionary 
organizations  within  existing  dioceses  when  requested 
to  do  so  by  the  ecclesiastical  authoritj'  of  such  diocese 
or  dioceses. 

Mr.  CnuncniLL,  of  Kentucky  —  moved  that  for 
the  remainder  of  the  session  no  member  be  permitted 
to  speak  more  than  ten  minutes,  nor  oftener  than  once  on 
the  same  subject,  which  was  adopted,  excepting  mem- 
bers of  standing  committees  in  charge  of  motions. 

On  motion  of  Rev.  Dr.  Haight,  the  House  proceeded 
to  the  consideration  of  the  following  amendment  to  the 
canons. 

Resolved,  the  House  of  Uishops  inncniring,  That 
section  (i,  clause  2,  of  Canon  12,  Title  1,  of  the  Digest, 
be  amended  by  inserting  in  the  lOth  line  of  said  clause, 
innnediately  after  the  words  "  shall  be  necessary,"  the 
following  words,  viz: — "Hut  nothing  in  this  canon 
shall  be  construed  to  prevent  any  clergyman  of  this 
Church  from  officiating  in  any  parish  church,  or  in  any 
place  of  public  worshi])  used  by  any  congregation  of 
this  Church,  or  elsewhere  within  the  parochial  cure  of 
the  minister  of  said  congregation,  with  the  consent  of 
the  clergyman  in  charge  of  such  congregation,  or,  in  his 
absence,  of  the  church  wardens  and  vestrymen  or  trus- 
tees of  such  congregation  or  of  a  majority  of  tliem." 

The  reverend  doctor  proceeded  to  explain  the  intended 
operation  of  this  amendment,  that  it  would  obviate 
conflicting  interpretations  of  the  present  law  of  the 
Chuieli,  so  as  to  allow  of  a  minister's  inviting  a  brother 
to  officiate  in  his  pulpit  without  asking  the  consent  of 


70 


a  majority  of  the  ministers  of  the  Church  resident  in 
the  city  or  town.  A  nvniiber  of  amendments  were 
oflered,  but  they  were  all  declared  out  of  order,  and 
without  much  debate  the  proposed  amendment  was 
unanimously  carried.  After  the  vote  was  announced, 
Judge  Conyngham,  of  Pennsylvania;  Judge  Comstock, 
of  New  York  ;  Mr.  De  Rossett,  of  North  Carolina,  and 
Rev.  Dr.  Peterkin,  of  Virginia,  offered  other  amend- 
ments to  the  same  canon,  with  the  intention  of  render- 
ing it  less  restrictive,  which  were  all  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Canons. 

The  following  new  canon,  on  the  consecration  of 
churches,  reported  from  the  committee  on  the  15th 
inst,  was  then  taken  up : — 

1.  The  form  of  consecration  of  a  church  or  chapel 
shall  not  be  used  at  an}'  time  before  sufficient  evidence 
be  furnished  to  the  bishop  that  the  building  to  be  con- 
secrated, and  the  land  on  which  it  stands,  aie  free  from 
debt  or  other  pecuniary  liability. 

2.  The  title  to  such  building  and  land  shall  be  secured 
to  the  person,  persons  or  corporation  authorized  by  the 
laws  of  the  State  or  Territory  in  which  it  is  situated  to 
hold  property  for  the  diocese,  parish  or  congregation, 
and  such  building  and  land  shall  not  be  encumbered  nor 
alienated  by  mortgage  or  sale,  by  the  parties  aforesaid, 
without'the  consent  ol  the  ecclesiastical  authority  of  the 
diocese  in  which  they  are  situated. 

3.  A  church  or  chapel  once  consecrated  to  the  service 
of  Almighty  God  shall  be  "  separate  from  all  unhallowed, 
worldly  or  common  uses  ;"'  and  it  shall  not  be  re- 
moved or  disposed  of  or  taken  down  unless  permission 
be  first  obtained  from  the  bishop,  acting  by  the  advice 
and  consent  ot  the  standing  committee  of  the  diocese  in 
which  it  is  situated. 

A  number  of  objections  were  made  to  the  phraseology, 
especiall)'  from  Vermont  and  Maine,  the  peculiar  laws 
of  which  States  make  a  pew  real  property  and  subject 
to  attachment  for  debt.  The  proposed  canon  was  final- 
ly referred  back  to  the  committee,  and  the  House  at 
half  past  three  o'clock  P.  M.,  adjourned  to  Monday. 

ELEVENTH    DAy's    PKOCEEDINOS. 

Monday,  Oct.  lyth,  ISOS. 

The  Convention  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

Morning  Prayer  was  said  by  Rev.  Mr.  Perkins, 
of  Kentucky,  and  Rev.  Dr.  Adams,  of  Wisconsin. 

The  Benediction  was  pronounced  by    Bishop  Talbot. 

The  journal  of  Saturday's  proceeding  was  read  and 
approved. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight — reported  from  the  Committee  on 
Canons,  that  the  proposed  amendment  to  Canon  12,  Sec- 
tion 2,  Title  2,  (to  the  effect  that  members  of  the  Church 
should  be  amenable  to  the  parish  jurisdiction  to  which 
thev  may  remove)  is  inexpedient,  and  asked  that  the 
committee  be  discharged. 

Rev.  Dr.  Stubbs — hoped  that  the  Convention  would 
not  dispose  of  the  subject  in  that  manner,  and  moved 
to  recommit.  But  understanding  that  the  Committee 
on  Canons  had  before  them  the  subject  of  an  amend- 
ment which  would  meet  his  wishes,  he  withdrew  his 
motion  to  recommit. 


On  motion  the  committee  were  discharged  from  the 
further  consideration  of  the  subject. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight — presented  Report  No.  13,  from  the 
Committee  on  Canons,  with  reference  to  a  resolution  of 
inquiry  and  direction  touching  the  duties  and  discipline 
of  Lay-readers,  reporting  that  in  their  judgment  the  ex- 
isting legislation  of  the  Church  on  this  subject  is 
sufficient,  and  asking  to  be  discharged  from  further 
consideration  of  the  subject. 

The  counnittee  were  then  discharged. 

Report  No.  \i  from  the  same  committee  was  submit- 
ted, with  reference  to  the  proposed  amendment  of  Can- 
on 20,  Title  1,  as  to  the  use  of  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  giving  Bishops  of  this  Church  the  power  to 
sanction  forms  of  service  selected  from  the  Book  of 
Conuuon  Prayer  instead  of  the  prescribed  forms,  under  . 
peculiar  circumstances. 

The  committee  deemed  the  proposed  amendment  in- 
expedient and  asked  to  be  discharged  from  further 
consideration  of  the  subject,  and  wei'e  accordingly  dis- 
charged. 

Rev.  Dr.  liicHAuo  S.  Mason — from  the  Committee 
on  the  Prayer  Book,  reported  on  the  resolution  of  Dr. 
Rylance,  with  reference  to  the  typographical  correctness 
of  the  last  sentence  but  one  in  that  part  of  the  Holy 
Connnunion  office  known  as  the  Invocation,  ending  with 
the  words,  "  That  He  may  dwell  in  them  and  they  in 
Him." 

The  committee  reported  that  it  was  originally  derived 
frpm  the  office  of  the  Scotch  Episcopal  Church,  and 
they  were  unanimously  of  the  opinion  that  it  would  not 
be  advisable  to  make  any  change  in  the  present  phrase- 
ology.   On  their  request  the  committee  were  discharged. 

Another  report  from  the  same  committee  was  sub 
mitted,  on  the  resolutions  offered  by  Rev.  Dr.  Haight 
with  respect  to  alterations  in  the  stereotype  plates  of 
the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  other  matters — that 
the  committee  did  not  find  in  the  possession  and  custody 
of  this  House  or  of  any  officer  of  the  General  Convention 
a  copy  of  the  standard  edition  of  Common  Prayer  re- 
ferred to  in  Canon  17,  Title  1  ;  that  the  Messrs.  Harper 
Brothers  had  formerly  in  their  possession  a  set  of  stereo- 
type plates  which  had  been  sold  and  whose  present 
ownership  could  not  be  traced  ;  that  a  set  of  plates  is  in 
the  possession  of  Mr.  James  Pott,  agent  of  the  New 
York  Bible  and  Prayer  Book  Society,  who  says  that  the 
plates  have  been  in  his  keeping  smce  December,  1801, 
and  that  from  that  date  they  have  remained  intact 
though  some  changes  had  been  previously  made  in 
them  but  by  whose  authority  he  had  not  been  able  to 
find  out.  The  nature  or  extent  of  the  changes  the 
committee  were  unable  to  ascertain.  They  submitted 
a  resolution  to  the  effect  that  a  joint  committee  to  con- 
sist of  three  members  on  the  part  of  this  House  be 
appointed  to  sit  during  the  recess  with  power  to  exam- 
ine the  stereotype  plates  of  the  edition  of  the  Prayer 
Book  now  in  the  possession  of  Mr.  Pott,  and  correct  the 


71 


manifest  typographical  errors  thereof;  secondly,  to 
ascertain  what  changes  had  been  made  in  said  plates 
from  the  standard  edition  of  1844,  and  restore  such  plates 
to  conformity  with  said  standard  edition  ;  and  thirdly, 
to  procure  and  publish  citlier  from  the  old  plates  or  new 
another  and  correct  edition  of  the  standard  Prayer  Hook; 
and,  fourthly,  that  there  should  be  an  officer  of  the 
Convention  appointed  to  be  called  the  custodian  of  the 
standard  Prayer  Book  who  shall  be  intrusted  with 
the  keeping  of  the  plates  and  a  copy  of  the  book  for  the 
use  of  the  Convention.  The  committee  nominated  as 
members  of  the  committee  referred  to  in  the  resolutions, 
Rev.  Dr.  Haight,  of  New  York  ;  Rev.  Dr.  Coit,  of  Troy  ; 
Rev.  Dr.  Howe,  of  Philadelphia ;  and,  as  a  custodian  of 
the  General  Convention,  Rev.  Dr.  Haight. 

On  motion,  these  resolutions  were  adopted. 

Another  report  from  the  same  committee  was  sub- 
mitted with  the  following  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  it  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Canons  to  consider  the  expediency  of  amending  the 
second  section  of  Canon  17,  Title  1,  by  striking  out  the 
words  "  Harper  and  Brothers  in  184.5,"  and  inserting 
the  words  "  and  corrected  and  republished  under  tlie 
supervision  of  a  joint  committee  of  both  Houses  of  the 
General  Convention,  1868." 

Which  resolution  was  adopted. 

The  special  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the 
resolution  that  the  Diocese  of  Maine  have  permission  to 
make  a  transcript  of  the  catalogue  of  ordinations  in  the 
American  Church,  prepared  by  the  late  Bishop  Burgess, 
and  also  the  memorial  and  statement  of  Rev.  Dr.  Bailey, 
of  Vermont,  embracing  preambles  and  resolutions  to 
the  same  effect,  adopted  by  the  Convention  of  that  dio- 
cese together  with  similar  memorials  h'om  the  dioceses 
of  Maine,  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  and  New  Hamp- 
shire, reported  in  eft'ect  that  the  said  catalogue  was  oi' 
too  great  value  to  be  loaned;  but  that  some  facility 
should  be  attorded  to  dioceses  for  procuring  the  infor- 
mation contained  in  the  catalogue  of  Bishop  Burgess  ; 
that  it  would  be  well  to  create  a  permanent  commission, 
composed  of  an  equal  number  of  ISishops,  Clergy, 
and  Laymen,  who  shall  have  power  to  control  the 
archives  of  the  Church  and  other  articles  belonging  to 
the  Convention,  and  to  whom,  during  recess,  application 
may  be  made  for  liberty  to  examine  pamphlets  or  manu- 
scripts according  to  rules  which  the  commission  might 
establish. 

A  resolution  embodying  such  recommendations  was 
adopted. 

Rev.   Dr.   Mason — called   attention   to   a   resolution 
passed  at  the  last  General  Convention  witli  reference  to  ! 
preparing  a  new  cycle   completing  the  present  century, 
to  be  inserted  in  the  table  for  finding  Kiister.     It  being  | 
uncertain  whether  the  House  of  Bishops  had  taken  action  I 
upon  that  resolution,  at  the  last  General   Convention,   ! 
Dr.  Mason  moved  the  adoption  of.  the  same  resolution 
by  this  Convention. 


Rev.  Dr.  Mason — submitted  a  resolution  suggesting 
certain, changes  in  the  Metrical  Psalms  and  the  Hymns, 
as,  in  the  20th  selection,  4th  line,  of  1st  stanza  the 
word  "Thy"  into  "my";  in  the  101st  selection,  in  the 
1st  stanza,  .'id  line,  the  word  "movably"  to  "movable"; 
in  the  1st  line,  3d  stanza,  Hymn  .5(1,  the  change  of  the 
words  "  by  Thine  hourof  dark  despau'";  in  Kiuth  Hymn, 
4th  line,of  the  3d  stanza,instead  of  the  words  "the  .sicken- 
ing anguish  of  despair"  the  words  "  thy  bitter  griefs, 
thy  harrowing  care." 

Which  resolution  was  referred  to  the  Connnittee  on 
the  Prayer  Book. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mason — offered  a  resolution,  which  he  de- 
sired laid  upon  the  table  for  the  purpose  of  having  it 
brought  before  the  Committee  on  the  Prayer  Book ; 
which  was  to  the  effect  that  the  House  of  Bishops  con- 
cur in  the  following  changes  to  be  made  in  the  Book  of 
Common  Prayer  :  (1)  That  a  semicolon  be  restored  in 
the  place  of  the  present  comma  after  the  words  Holy 
Catholic  Church  in  the  creed  commonly  called  the 
Apostles'  Creed  ;  (2)  That  a  comma  be  inserted  after  the 
words  "  the  Holy  Ghost  the  Lord  "  in  the  Nicene  Creed  ; 
(3)  That  a  comma  be  inserted  after  the  word  Father  in 
the  next  line. 

On  motion  of  Rev.  Dr.  Mason,  his  resolution  was  laid 
upon  the  table,  with  the  view,  he  said,  that  it  might  be 
printed  in  the  Journal  and  be  submitted  to  the  consider- 
ation of  the  Church  at  large. 

The  Secretary,  at  the  request  of  Rev.  Dr.  Howe, 
read  the  Rev.  Dr.  Coil's  report  from  the  joint  Commit- 
tee of  the  Convention  of  1841,  appointed  to  recommend 
a  standard  Prayer  Book ;  which  report,  by  motion  of 
Rev.  Dr.  Hodges,  was  ordered  to  be  printed  as  an  ap- 
pendix to  the  Journal  of  this  Convention. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mason — offered  a  resolution  to  the  effect 
that  the  word  Holy  be  inserted  in  the  Nicene  Creed,  so 
as  to  read  "one  Holy  Catholic  Church." 

Mr.  TazewellTaylor,  of  Virginia — offered  the  fol- 
lowing resolution : 

Resolved,  That  in  the  judgiuem  of  this  Convention  it  is 
inexpedient  to  alter  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer. 

Mr.  Todd — took  the  opportunity  to  make  an  explan- 
ation of  his  motive  in  offering  his  resolution  some  days 
since,  with  reference  to  the  change  in  the  Book  of  Com- 
mon Prayer.  It  was  not  his  wish  that  the  Prayer  Book 
should  be  altered  in  any  sense  ;  but  he  had  heard  so 
many  intimations  that  it  should  be  altered,  that  he 
thought  the  suggestion  of  the  change  should  be  made 
in  the  case  of  alteration ;  for,  be  did  not  believe  that 
there  was  a  member  in  this  Convention  that  believed 
that  the  literal  meaning  of  the  words  referred  to  in  his 
resolution  are  the  meaning  of  this  Clmrch— that  the 
minister  has  any  power  to  forgive  or  to  retain  sins. 

Mr.  Taylor  : — The  objeut  of  my  resolution  was  at 
this  stage  of  the  session  or  of  any  session,  to  prevent  a 
reference  to  any  committee  of  any  proposition  to  alter 
the  grayer  Book ;  and  the  proposition  which  I  have  the 


72 


honor  of  submitting,  does  not  interfere  with  the  resoln- 
tion  adopted,  directing  the  standing  Committee  to  cor" 
rect  any  typographical  errors  in  the  plates ;  they  are 
corrected  by  the  standard  edition,  as  I  understand  it. 
The  effect  of  the  adoption  of  the  resolution  will  be  to 
stifle  all  these  references  to  a  committee.  I  tliinli  if 
you  will  look  back  to  the  past  action  of  this  Convention, 
you  wdl  find  that  almost  invariably  all  efforts  of  this 
kind  to  alter  the  Prayer  Book,  have  ended  this  way. 
One  of  my  friends  near  me  suggests  that  the  distinguish- 
ed Judge  Cliambers,  whose  memory  we  all  revere  as  ex- 
pressed in  our  ri-solutions,  invariably  pursued  this  course- 
and  invariably  met  with  the  approval  of  the  Convention; 
I  do  not  think  there  is  any  reason  why  we  should'un- 
dertake  this  work  of  reform.  We  have  all  seen  learned 
Doctors  disagree  on  this  subject  of  alterations.  It  seems 
to  me  best  to  stand  by  the  standard  or  there  would  be 
unending  doubt  and  confusion.  I  have  here  a  book 
which  speaks  of  the  Romanizing  germs  in  this  Prayei- 
Book,  and  I  would  desire  to  put  a  stamp  of  disapproba- 
tion on  this  book  and  all  other  attempts  to  weaken  the 
laith  in  the  Prayer  Book. 

Hon.  S.  B.  RoGGLEs : — I  think  that  the  resolution  of 
my  much  esteemed  friend  goes  too  f;\r,  because  prema- 
ture. I  do  not  think  this  body  is  prepared  to  say,  that 
the  Prayer  Book,  however  excellent  it  may  be  (and  I 
yield  to  no  man  in  admiring  its  perfection),  is  never  to 
be  changed.  1  will  give  a  particular  reason  why  we 
should  not  take  this  action — namely,  the  growing  ques- 
tion of  the  unity  of  the  Church  throughout  the  world. 
It  is  perfectly  well  known  that  there  is  a  large  party  in 
the  Anglican  and  in  this  Church,  that  are  desirous  to 
bring  about  a  union  with  the  orthodo.x  Greek  Church ; 
and  the  great  impediment  to  that  union  is  the  existence 
of  an  interpolation  by  the  Church  of  Rome  in  the  Ni- 
cene  Creed ;  and  if  we  determine  that  this  is  not  change- 
able we  can  never  unite  with  the  orthodox  Greek 
Church.  This  was  an  interpolation  by  the  Church  of 
Rome,  which  has  separated  the  Greek  Church  from  the 
Anglican  Church  and  our  own ;  and  if  we  declare 
that  that  interpolation  shall  forever  remain,  we  shall 
decide  in  advance  that  we  will  never  enter  into  union 
with  those  two  Churches.  I  hope  that  the  gentle 
man  will  not  press  his  resolution. 

Mr.  Taylor  : — I  desire  to  say  that  it  is  not  my  wish 
to  press  the  House  to  vote  upon  any  question.  With 
the  consent  of  the  House,  I  move  that  the  proposition 
which  I  have  submitted  be  laid  on  the  table,  to  be  call- 
ed up  on  Wednesday  morning. 

This  motion  was  adopted. 

Hon.  S.  B.  RuGGLES — offered  the  following  resolu- 
tion: 

Rexolvnd,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Prayer  Book  cause 
to  be  prepared,  and  report  to  the  next  General  Conven- 
tion, an  accurate  translation  fiom  the  original  Greek,  of  the 
creed,  inserted  in  the  Prayer  Book  as  the  Nicene  Creed. 

Adopted. 


Mr.   Welsh,  offered  the  following  resolution : 

Resoloed,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Domestic  and  For- 
eign Missionary  Society  and  the  Committee  on  Canons  be  con- 
stituted a  committee  to  report  to  this  House  for  its  considera- 
tion such  changes  in  tlie  canons  and  also  in  the  constitution  of 
the  Domestic  and  Foreis'n  Missionary  Society,  as  may  be  nec- 
essary to  change  the  title  of  the  Board  of  Missions,  to  the 
Missionary  Council  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in 
the  United  States  of  America,  and  to  give  that  council  high 
efficiency. 

Adopted. 

Mr.  RuGGLES — offered  a  resolution  Cadopted),  that 
the  Secretary  take  the  necessary  measures  to  obtain  re- 
turns from  the  sevei-al  dioceses  of  matters  required  by 
Canon  15,  and  to  insert  the  same  in  the  printed  copy  of 
the  Journal. 

A  resolution  having  been  offered  that  the  next  Trien- 
nial Convention  be  held  in  Cincinnati — 

Mr.  Welsh — moved  that  the  places  for  holding  said 
Convention  be  now  named,  and  the  vote  be  taken  to- 
morrow at  12  o'clock.     Adopted. 

Thereupon  were  suggested  Philadelphia,  Baltimore, 
Chicago,  Louisville,  and  St.  Louis. 

Judge  CoNYNGHAM  movcd  to  take  up  the  report  of 
the  Committee  on  Canons  relative  to  Assistant  Bishops 
— an  amendment  to  section  5,  Canon  13,  Title  1.  Motion 
agreed  to. 

Judge  CoNYKGHAM : — As  the  canon  now  stands  no 
assistant-bishop  can  be  elected  until  by  reason  of  old 
age  or  other  permanent  cause  the  Bishop  is  unable  to  dis- 
charge his  episcopal  duties.  We  have  valuable  bishops  in 
various  dioceses  of  these  United  States,  and  I  am  dis- 
posed, if  we  can  with  the  approbation  of  this  House,  to 
provide  for  the  preservation  of  the  health  of  those  Bish- 
ops in  the  performance  of  their  duties  by  giving  them 
proper  assistance  so  that  their  dioceses  may  be  enabled  to 
have  the  episcopal  duties  properly  performed  and  yet 
the  bishop  be  not  broken  down.  A  proper  title  of  this 
canon  would  be—  "To  preserve  the  health  and  lives  of 
valuable  bishops."  I  think  this  canon  would  also  meet 
many  of  the  difficulties  suggested  in  relation  to  the  di- 
vision of  dioceses.  It  may  be  objected  that  this  amend- 
ment would  enable  dioceses  to  multiply  bishops  and  in- 
crease the  episcopal  representation  of  the  diocese  in  the 
House  of  Bishops.  We  place  the  assistant-bishop  in  the 
House  of  Bishops  and  give  him  a  vote  except  when  his 
Bishop  is  present.  It  is  to  have  no  retrospective  appli- 
cation ;  it  applies  to  no  assistant-bishop  already 
elected.  The  bishops  are  not  regarded  particularly  as 
the  representatives  of  dioceses,  but  they  come  from  dio- 
ceses and  so  far  they  represent  dioceses.  It  might  not 
seem  to  be  exactly  right  to  say  that  the  assistant-bishop 
may  vote  when  the  bishop  himself  was  present,  either 
negativing  or  doubling  the  vote  of  the  Bishop.  Under 
the  present  canon  bishops  are  often  unwilling  to 
acknowledge  themselves  permanently  infirm;  no  man 
likes  to  undervalue  himself  physically  or  mentally.  This 
amendment  will  not  only  remove  many  difficulties  sug- 


73 


gested  the  other  day  in  relation  to  the  division  of  dio- 
ceses, but  preserve  to  the  dioceses  that  now  have  them, 
valuable  bishops. 

Ivev.  Dr.  Adams  : — 1  believe  I  was  the  first  person  to 
point  out  the  iniquity  of  this  matter  of  assistant  bishops, 
before  the  Church  in  Richmond,  Va.  It  has  been  a 
universal  principle  of  the  Church  from  the  earliest  times 
that  there  shall  be  but  one  bishop  in  a  diocese.  History 
tells  us  that  there  was  no  assistant-bishop  until  the  great 
Augustine  was  made  assistant  of  Valerius ;  and  when  he 
became  assistant  he  was  so  affronted  by  it,  considering 
that  he  hail  broken  the  Nicene  Canon  that  he  appoint- 
ed him  bishop  of  a  small  place  near  him  that  he  might 
not  break  down  the  canon.  I  think  the  principle  of  the 
Church  is  simply  one  bishop  in  one  diocese.  It  is  just 
as  appropriate  as  one  sun  in  one  planetary  system.  This 
Church  has  adopted  the  principle  that  in  case  of  perma- 
nent infirmity  there  shall  be  an  assistant-bishop.  The 
canon  is  loosely  interpreted  and  thereby  bishops  of  one 
stripe  or  another  are  enabled  to  perpetuate  their  princi- 
ples, and  to  put  down  upon  the  diocese  as  an  assistant  a 
successor  who  certainly  would  not  be  elected  if  left  to 
the  natural  course  of  affairs.  I  would  say  that  the  bish- 
op is  unquestionably  the  most  influential  man  in  the 
diocese ;  and,  by  the  urgent  exercise  of  authority  can 
control  the  elections,  thus  destroying  freedom  of  elec- 
tion ;  and  any  clergyman  or  any  layman  is  put  in  the 
position  of  either  voting  for  the  bishop's  choice  or  of 
being  proscribed.  Indeed,  the  whole  matter  of  assist- 
ant bishops  is  simply  a  matter  of  destroying  the 
freedom  of.  elections,  and  the  assistant  is  simply 
anti-church  iniquity.  It  is  perfectly  just  that  the  bishop 
should  have  an  assistant  when  he  is  incapacitated  by  old 
age  or  other  permanent  cause  of  infirmity.  But  look  at 
the  bishops  that  have  assistant-bishops.  Are  they  in- 
capable ?  Certainly  not.  We  have  several  bishops  that 
have  assistants  who  are  as  lively  men  as  any  that  we 
have  ;  the  result  is  a  breach  of  ecclesiastical  order ;  you 
have  two  bishops  in  one  diocese — two  suns  in  one  system. 
The  matter  of  assistant-bishops  ought  to  be  regulated, 
but  in  a  different  way  from  that  proposed.  Casting 
away  the  ground  of  permanent  disability  and  substi- 
tuting the  idea  of  assistants  to  preserve  "valuable  lives," 
will  simply  develop  this  iniquity.  I  know  a  man  at 
present  that  has  an  assistant,  and  every  time  they  meet 
both  in  good  health,  they  must  smile  at  one  another,  and 
feel  that  they  have  done  something  not  exactly  right. 
There  are  a  good  many  bishops  who  have  "valuable 
lives,"  that  will  want  assistants. 

Judge  Battle  : — My  learned  friend  compares  the 
bishops  to  the  sun  of  the  solar  system.  We  have  now  a 
provision  that  in  case  of  old  age  or  other  permanent  in- 
firmity there  shuU  be  an  assistant-bishop.  I  have  no 
objection  that  if  the  sun  in  the  solar  system  should  get 
so  old  and  infirm  that  it  could  not  afford  us  the  necessary 
warmth,  we  should  have  another  sun.  I  have  no  objec- 
tions to  two  suns  if  one  will  not  answer  the  purpose. 
10 


There  is  no  proposition  before  the  Convention  to  do 
away  with  all  assistant-bishops  ;  they  are  already  provid- 
ed for;  and  therefore  all  remarks  to  that  intent  are  beside 
the  question.  If  there  are  to  be  no  assistant-bishops, 
because  there  can  be  but  one  sun  in  the  system,  then, 
sir,  we  must  strike  them  out;  but  as  there  are  cases  in 
which  even  that  gentleman  admits  wo  must  have  assist- 
ant bishops,  I  suppose  every  body  recognizes  the  neces- 
sity. The  proposed  change  goes  thus  far  and  no  further. 
It  provides  that  in  case  that  it  is  seen  that  the  health  of 
a  bishop  is  about  to  be  broken  down,  permanently  im- 
paired, by  the  onerous  duties  devolved  upon  him,  he 
should  be  saved  from  the  condition  of  permanent  infirm- 
ity. I  was  sorry  to  see  my  learned  friend  cast  any  re- 
flections on  the  bishops,  by  saying  that  they  would  liave 
assistants  without  need.  He  instanced  a  case  in  which 
he  said  the  bishop  and  his  assistant  could  hardly  meet 
without  smiling  at  each  other  [for  the  supposed  pre- 
tence of  incapacity].  It  might  well  be  supposed  tiiat 
the  election  of  the  assistant-bishop  has  been  the  means 
of  restoring  the  health  of  the  old  bishop.  Shall  we  com- 
plain of  that?  Ought  we  not  rather  to  rejoice  at  it  ? 
What  has  taken  place  es/jos^/ac^o  ought  not  to  liave 
any  effect. 

Judge  Otis — I  assume  from  what  our  learned  friend, 
Dr.  Adams,  has  said  that  assistant  bishops  are  lawful, 
and  have  been  for  a  long  time.  Large  dioceses  cannot 
be  divided  sometimes  and  it  is  provided  that  no  city, 
though  large,  shall  constitute  more  than  one  diocese,  and 
this  amendment  gives  the  bishops  needed  assistants 
when  the  episcopal  duties  threaten  to  break  down  their 
health. 

Mr.  Welsh,  of  Pa.,  was  opposed  to  the  amendment  as 
likely  to  give  two  heads  to  the  diocese  ;  and  nothing  but 
the  utmost  discretion  of  the  old  bishop  would  save  the 
diocese  from  faction  and  anarchy  ;  and  it  would  give  the 
Diocesan  Convention  opportunity  for  worrying  the  bishop 
into  the  acceptance  of  an  assistant,  or  resigning. 

Rev.  Dr.  Shelton — was  in  favor  of  deferring  the  sug- 
gested action.  The  emergency  had  not  arisen  for  assist- 
ant bishops  to  share  the  episcopal  duties  of  dioceses  too 
large,  as  ultimately  in  cities. 

Rev.  Mr.  Marple — had  lived  in  a  diocese  where  the 
bishop  and  his  assistant  were  alike  welcomed  in  all  parts 
of  the  diocese,  and  no  difficulty  between  themselves  or 
between  them  and  the  clergy  or  laity.  The  proposed 
system  was  justified  by  experience,  and  the  anticipated 
discord  disproved.  He  was  not  in  favor  of  one  of  the 
propositions  of  the  proposed  amendment  ;  he  would  like 
to  have  the  assistant  have  a  vote  in  the  House  of  Bishops 
under  all  circumstances,  not  as  representing  a  diocese, 
but  in  right  of  his  office  as  a  bishop. 

Rev.  Dr.  Andrews — said  that  during  the  last  .30 
years  there  had  been  assistant  bishops  in  the  Diocese  of 
Virginia,  and  all  those  years  bad  been  years  of  undivid- 
ed harmony.  So  far  as  experience  there  went,  it  did 
not  justify  the  apprehension  that  the  bishop  could  con" 


74 


trol  the  election  of  the  assistant  against  the  free  votes  of 
the  clergy  aad  laity. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight — beKevfd  that  the  election  of  as- 
sistant bishops  arose  from  a  felt  want,  and  the  practice 
would  therefore  continue,  do  what  we  will.  His  doctrine 
was  that  the  true  line  for  the  legislation  of  the  Church 
was  to  take  things  as  they  are  and  not  certain  men's 
opinions  of  what  they  should  be. 

Rev.  Dr.  Shllton,  of  Western  New  York — said  the 
need  of  one  bishop  should  be  supplied  by  other  bishops 
having  less  duties,  and  not  by  appointing  assistant  bish- 
ops. It  is  not  absolutely  necessary  we  should  push  this 
matter.  (Rev.  Dr.  Haight.  We  are  not  pushing  it.)  I 
don't  know  what  you  call  pushing;  you  are  urging  it 
with  all  your  might,     (laughter). 

Rev.  Dr.  Hodges — did  not  think  it  necessary  to  adopt 
special  legislation  to  suit  the  sensitiveness  of  some  bish- 
ops to  availing  themselves  of  th#present  law  as  to  disa- 
bility. No  legislation  could  go  to  the  point  of  the  par- 
ticular degree  of  sensitiveness  of  our  bishops.  There  is 
nothing  urged  to  show  the  nel■os^ity  of  the  change,  and 
the  only  provision  made  is  that  it  is  going  to  appear  be- 
forehand to  the  convention  that  their  bishop  is  going  to 
be  permanently  broken  down.     [Laughter). 

Rev.  |Mr.  Rogers  —  opposed  the  amendment.  He 
could  conceive  of  a  case  where  a  shrewd  managing  act- 
ive bishop  having  made  up  his  mind  that  he  wants  an 
assistant — a  particular  man  for  assistant  and  succes- 
sor— in  a.single  round  could  bring  his  influence  so  to 
bear  upon  the  diocese  that  when  the  convention  met,  his 
chosen  man  nominated  as  pre-arranged,  should  be  elect- 
ed against  the  judgment  of  the  convention.  On  the  other 
hand,  in  some  cases,  two  or  three  shrewd  managing 
presbyters  could  worry  the  bishop  into  acceptance  of 
whomsoever  they  desired  to  have  as  assistant,  or  crowd 
him  from  his  office.  He  did  not  believe  there  was  a 
bishop  in  the  world  who  could  stand  against  the  active 
opposition  of  his  clergy.  A  lawyer  would  go  on  with  his 
business  till  he  could  do  so  no  longer,  and  then  tell  his 
clients  so.  The  bishop  should  do  as  the  lawyer.  The  law 
as  it  is  should  remain. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead,  of  Connecticut :— I  have  been  some- 
what surprised  at  the  course  of  the  argument  which 
some  gentlemen  have  taken  in  relation  to  this  matter, 
which  is  utterly  at  variance  with  my  own  observation  and 
experience.  One  gentleman  tells  us  that  one  great 
danger  will  be  that  the  bishop  will  in  effect  appoint  his 
own  successor.  I  have  never  known  an  instance  where 
even  a  man  with  the  whole  influence  of  Bishop  White 
could  have  a  successor  appointed.  But  liow  does  the 
argument  go  ?  One  gentleman  in  one  sentence  will  tell 
us  that  the  bishop  will  succeed  in  appointing  his  suc- 
cessor, and  in  the  next  breath,  that  by  pressure  an  as- 
sistant will  be  forced  upon  the  bishop  in  spite  of  himself. 
I  have  lived  long  enough  to  know  that  the  great  error 
or  the  great  tendency  in  our  Church  is  not  to  crowd 
bishops  but  to  worship  them.     Let  me  tell  you  that  any 


Presbyter  who  will  attempt  to  crowd  them  will  find  that 
he  is  playing  with  edged  tools.  I  could  name 
one  who  tried  it,  who  said,  "  I  care  not  what  a  bishop 
will  do  ;  I  meddled  with  one  and  I  will  take  care  how 
I  meddle  with  another."  I  have  no  apprehension  that 
bishops  will  be  crowded  by  the  Diocesan  Conventions. 
I  know  this  one  thing  :  that  the  one-man  power  of  bish- 
ops in  the  dioceses  makes  his  little  fingers  more  power- 
ful than  the  loins  of  all  his  clergy  and  laity.  Under 
these  circumstances  are  we  to  fear  taking  away  that 
whijh  J  hold  to  be  a  snare  to  the  consciences  of  bish- 
ops ?  Bishops  will  stretch  a  point  in  the  interpretation 
of  a  canon  as  it  now  stands  in  respect  to  the  "permanent 
cause,"  especially  when  they  are  not  required  to  submit 
to  the  e.xaminatiou  of  physicians  but  to  decide  the  ques- 
tion for  themselves.  We  know  that  as  men  advance  a 
little  in  life  they  are  apt  to  become  a  little  wheezy  and 
imagine  that  many  difficulties  e.xist  which  do  not  in  re- 
ality. The  canon  as  it  now  stands  is  a  snare  to  the 
consciences  of  some  bishops.  In  the  ca*  where  there 
is  an  unwiUingness  to  divide  dioceses  and  the  duties  are 
too  onerous,  the  amendment  allows  the  appointment  of 
an  assistant  to  save  the  bishop  from  disability  by  over- 
taxing duties.  There  is  an  unwillingness  to  divide  my 
own  diocese.  Yet  I  see  my  Bishop  is  every  day  becom- 
ing prematurely  an  old  man  fiom  the  pressure  of  his 
duties  ;  but  he  cannot  under  the  present  canon  ask  for 
an  assistant ;  yet  I  have  no  doubt  that  many  in  the  diop- 
cese  believe  that  it  would  be  an  advantage  to  the  dio- 
cese as  well  as  to  the  Bishop,  to  have  an  assistant,  though 
he  has  no  permanent  cause  of  infirmity  at  the  present 
time.  I  will  go  to  the  Diocese  of  Pennsylvania.  We 
have  recently  known  that  in  the  providence  of  God  the 
good  bishop  of  that  diocese  met  with  a  railroad  accident 
which  has  undoubtedly  injured  if  not  shattered  his  con- 
stitution. Through  the  goodness  of  God,  and  by  being 
permitted  to  go  abroad,  he  is  somewhat  restored  to 
health.  At  the  last  action  of  the  diocese  the  proposi" 
tion  to  divide  the  diocese  failed.  Now  are  you  going  to 
leave  that  bishop  to  be  crushed  by  the  duties  of  a  large 
diocese,  when,  if  he  had  the  opportunity,  with  his  own 
consent  and  with  the  action  of  the  Convention,  to  ap- 
point an  assistant  be  might  last  for  the  Church  for 
years  ? 

Judge  Battle: — I  do  not  wish  to  be  considered  as 
making  a  second  speech.  I  rise  simply  for  the  purpose 
of  entering  my  solemn  protest  against  any  argument 
being  used  in  this  House  on  the  supposition  that  our 
Bishops  are  or  ever  will  be  dishonest  and  demagogues, 
that  our  Convention  will  be  composed  of  men  no  better 
tiian  they  should  be. 

Rev.  E.  T.  Perkins,  of  Kentucky : — I  do  not  pro- 
pose to  make  a  speech.  I  call  for  a  division  of  the 
question  now  before  us.  For  one  I  want  to  express  an 
alarm  which  I  feel  because  of  the  influences  and  repre- 
sentations we  have  here  in  this  House.  It  has  been  my 
good   fortune   since  I  have  been  in  the  ministry  to  be 


75 


under  Bishops  who  were  Christian  men,  and  to  bo  as- 
sociated with  ministers  who  were  Cliristian  gentlemen. 
Now,  the  great  danger  seems  to  be  that  this  Church  is 
to  have  a  parcel  of  shrewd,  managing  men  as  Bishops, 
and  shrewd  managing  men  as  their  Prcsbj'ters.  I  am 
not  willing  to  believe  that  such  is  the  case  with  men 
who  occupy  high  positions  in  this  Cliurch.  If  this  is 
true  there  is  only  one  order  in  this  Church  for  whicli  I 
should  have  any  respect — -the  Deacons.  I  have  not 
heard  a  word  against  them.  I  wish  to  call  for  a  division 
of  the  question.  I  am  in  favor  of  the  first  amendment 
proposed,  but  I  am  not  in  favor  of  the  last.  I  move  to 
strike  out  the  last  provision  (that  the  assistant-Bishop 
shall  not  vote  when  his  Bishop  is  present). 

The  motion  to  strike  out  was  lost. 

The  question  then  recurred  upon  the  adoption  of  the 
resolution  of  the  amendment ;  when,  after  a  division, 
it  was  adopted,  by  ayes  89,  noes  84. 

On  motion  of  Rev.  Dr.  Hodges,  the  message  of  the 
House  of  Bishops,  with  reference  to  clerical  union  with 
the  Canadian  Church,  was  referred  to  the  Committee 
on  Canons. 

On  motion  of  Judge  ComstoCK,  the  sessions  of  the 
House  were  fixed  from  10  to  5,  with  a  recess  from  1 
to  2. 

On  motion  of  Rev.  Dr.  Hdbbard,  the  resolution  re- 
ported by  the  Committee  on  the  Prayer  Book  was  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  Canons. 

On  motion  of  Rev.  Dr.  Hdbbahd,  the  following  reso- 
lution was  adopted. 

Resolved,  that  the  joint  standing  Committee  on  the 
Prayer  Book  be  authorized  to  consider  and  report  to  the 
next  General  Convention  on  questions  relating  to  the 
proper  pointing  of  the  standard  Prayer  Book,  and  the 
restoration  of  the  words  left  out  of  said  book  by  mere 
clerical  error. 

On  motion  of  Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin,  there  was  referred 
to  the  same  committee,  to  consider,  the  punctuation  of 
the  quotation  from  Jeremiah  in  the  Epistle  for  Good 
Friday. 

Rev.  Di\  Hodges — called  the  attention  of  the  House 
to  the  report  No.  11  of  the  Committee  on  Canons  with 
reference  to  persons  not  ministers,  officiating.  The  com- 
mittee reported  that  the  proposed  action  was  inexpe- 
dient and  asked  to  be  discharged  from  the  further  con- 
sideration of  the  subject.  He  then  moved  that  the  re- 
port be  recommitted,  together  with  a  new  resolution 
containing  a  new  form  for  tlie  amendment. 

He  then,  as  required  in  moving  a  recommitment,  gave 
his  reasons  for  so  doing. 

Rev.  Mr.  Peterkin,  of  Virginia, — opposed  the  recom- 
mitment, insisting  that  the  canon  as  it  now  stands  is  all 
that  is  required,  if  properly  interpreted. 

The  recommitment  was  then  agreed  to, 

Adjourned  to  to-morrow  morning  at  10  o'clock. 


TWELFTH    day's    PROCEEDINGS, 

Morning  Prayer  was  said  by  the  Rev.  Henry  N. 
Pierce,  D.  D.,  of  Alabama,  and  the  Rev.  Edward  Ballard, 
D.  D.,  of  Maine.  The  Benediction  was  pronounced  by 
the  Rt.  Rev.  John  B.  Kerfoot,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  of  Pitts- 
burgh. 

ThE  minutes  of  yesterday's  proceedings  were  read 
and  approved. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Howk  from  the  Committee  on  Canons 
made  the  following  report  : 

The  Committee  on  Canons  to  wliom  was  referred  cer- 
tain resolutions  of  the  Diocese  of  Pennsylvania,  touch- 
ing the  examination  of  Candidates  for  Holy  Orders,  beg 
leave  to  report  that  they  recommend  the  adoption  of  the 
following  amendment  of  Canon  .5,  Section  8,  Title  I.,  and 
the  adoption  of  tlie  following  resolution  : 

Resolved,  The  House  of  Bishops  concurring,  that 
Canon  5  of  Title  I.,  is  hereljy  amended  by  the  addition 
of  the  following  section,!  o  be  numbered  section  8. 

1.  All  examinations  of  Candidates  (or  Holy  Orders 
shall  consist  in  part  of  written  questions  and  answers  ; 
and  the  manuscripts  shall  be  preserved  in  the  Episcopal 
archives  of  the  dioceses  in  which  such  e.xaminalions  are 
respectively  held. 

2.  Examinations  of  Candidates  for  Priestly  Orders 
shall,  unless  the  Bishop  in  any  case  remit  the  rule,  be 
extended  through  parts  of  three  days. 

3.  For  the  conduct  of  exammations  at  which  the 
Bishop  of  the  diocese  is  not  personally  present,  it  shall 
be  his  duty  to  appoint  a  j)ermanent  committee  for  his 
diocese  or  the  different  districts  thereof,  or,  if  he  so  pre- 
fer, one  presbyter  as  an  examining  chaplain,  who,  with 
two  other  presbyters  appointed  for  each  occasion,  shall 
conduct  the  examination. 

Rev.  Dr.  Howe  : — The  motive  for  the  suggestion  of 
the  passageof  such  a  canon  has  been  a  conviction  in  the 
minds  of  many  in  our  diocese,  and  I  think  also  in 
other  dioceses,  that  examinations  are  very  imperfect  and 
insufficient;  and  the  fact  that  a  man  has  the  necessary 
oertificate  that  he  has  passed  his  examinations,  by  no 
means  proves  that  he  has  passed  them  in  such  wise  as 
hey  ought  to  have  been  passed.  This  canon  is  for  the 
purpose  of  exacting  a  more  certain  preparation  for  the 
admission  to  the  holy  ministry.  (In  answer  to  an  in- 
quiry^ It  amends  the  canon  in  one  sense  ;  it  adds  a 
section  at  the  close  of  it.  (In  answer  to  inquiry  as  to 
object  of  keeping  the  manuscript  examination).  The 
object  is  that  if  any  candidate  is  rejected,  the  written 
documents  may  be  on  hand  to  show  that  his  examination 
was  an  imperfect  one. 

Rev.  Mr.  Gadsden — said  that  the  provision  for 
three  examiners  might  be  well  in  some  sections  of  the 
country,  but  would  occasion  great  difficulty  in  dioceses 
where  the  population  is  scattered.  This  binds  thc^ 
Church  to  a  certain  mode  of  e.xamination  where  it  is  now 
left  free.  The  Bishop  may  now  make  provision  mo.st 
convenient  to  himself  and  his  presbyters. 


76 


Rev.  Dr.  Stobbs  : — I  think  the  objection  offered  by- 
the  deputy  from  South  Carolina  has  some  force.  I  do 
not  think  it  is  becoming  for  this  body  to  go  into  details 
of  that  kind.  It  should  be  left  to  the  Bishops  acting 
with  the  advice  of  their  presbyters.  Why  should  we 
meddle  with  details  of  that  kind  ?  The  conditions  of 
pioceses  are  so  different  that  it  seems  inexpedient  to  leg- 
islate upon  this  subject.  We  should  legislate  upon  gen- 
eral principles  and  let  these  matters  of  detail  be  man- 
aged by  the  BisViop  of  the  diocese  with  his  clergy. 
What  is  of  more  consequence  and  what  the  can- 
on does  not  provide  for,  is  an  examination  on  doc- 
trine— that  no  person  shall  be  allowed  to  enter  the 
ministry,  unless  he  passes  a  satisfactory  examina- 
tion on  doctrine.  Our  great  difficulty  is  that  men  are 
ordained  priests  who  do  not  believe  in  the  doctrines  and 
sacraments  which  as  priests  they  are  to  teach  and  ad 
minister.  Do  not  let  us  go  into  details  of  this  kind 
which  cannot  be  complied  with. 

Rev.  Dr.  HowB  : — In  the  seventh  section  of  the  can- 
on as  it  now  stands  it  is  provided  that  there  shall  be 
"three  examinations  at  such  times  and  places" — and 
the  topics  that  shall  be  under  consideration  at  these  sev- 
eral examinations  are  afterward  specified.  This  pro- 
posed section  which  I  have  had  the  honor  to  submit  only 
provides  that  these  examinations  shall  not  all  be  crowd- 
ed into  one,  unless  the  Bishop  for  special  reasons  remits 
the  rule.  It  provides  that  there  shall  be  three  examina- 
tions literally,  as  by  the  previous  section  of  the  canon 
which  has  been  long  established. 

Rev.  Mr.  Rogers,  of  Texas : — I  should  be  in  favor  ot 
these  provisions  provided  all  the  examinations  were  to 
be  about  the  centres.  In  my  own  parish  to-day  there 
is  a  candidate  for  orders.  If  the  committee  were  to  be 
appointed  at  Galveston  or  Houston,  he  must  travel  from 
165  to  200  miles  to  get  his  examination.  If  on  the 
other  hand  they  are  appointed  in  the  vicinity  of  Austin 
there  a  minister  must  go  90  miles  one  way  and  90  miles 
the  other  to  examine  him.  I  cannot  well  see  how  that 
rule  can  be  complied  with  in  my  diocese.  If  we  had  a 
candidate  for  orders  in  the  northern  part  of  the  diocese, 
and  the  committee  in  our  region,  he  might  be  compelled 
to  travel  from  300  to  500  miles.  But  when  the  Bishop 
can  take  a  clergyman  with  him  then  tliese  examinations 
can  be  in  any  part  of  the  state  without  much  travelling. 
It  would  operate  very  hardly  in  our  ease  and  might  in 
others. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight  : — Having  had  long  experience  in 
this  matter  of  the  examination  of  candidates  for  orders, 
1  beg  leave  to  say  that,  in  my  judgment,  this  is  one  ofthe 
most  important  matters  that  will  come  before  this 
House  during  its  present  session ;  for  I  have  no  hesita- 
tion in  saying,  and  I  think  that  most  of  those  on  the 
floor  of  this  House  who  have  had  experience  as  examiners, 
will  have  no  hesitation  in  saymg — that  of  all  the  shams 
ever  seen  the  greatest  are  examinations  for  candidates  for 
orders.     Examinations  have  been  held  where  the  three 


examinations  have  been  crowded  into  one.  I  have 
thought  of  the  subject  with  shame  and  regret  that  this 
Church  should  tolerate  this  thing.  You  may  say  it  is  in 
the  hands  of  the  bishop.  That  is  very  well,  but  the 
bishop  is  often  called  upon  to  have  reference  to  the  con- 
venience of  candidates  and  ofthe  clergy;  and  it  requires 
some  specific  legislation  to  regulate  examinations. 
Either  let  us  have  no  examinations  at  all,  or  let  them  be 
real.  As  to  the  remarks  of  my  brother  from  New  Jer- 
sey, as  to  examination  on  doctrine,  I  entirely  concur ; 
but  this  canon  coincides  with  his  views,  and  will 
strengthen  his  purpose ;  because  if  you  have  one  or 
two  presbyters  charged  with  the  examination  of  candi- 
dates for  Holy  Orders,  they  will  be  prepared,  and  the 
candidates  will  find  they  have  to  deal  with  those  who 
know  what  they  are  about.  I  remember  perfectly  well 
the  horror  depicted  on  the  countenances  of  two  or  three 
candidates  in  this  diocese,  when  presenting  themselves 
for  examination.  The  Bishop  was  not  well,  and,  at  his 
request,  I  conducted  the  examination  for  the  priesthood. 
Shortly  afterward  came  up  the  examination  for  the  di- 
aconate.  Said  one  ofthe  examiners,  "  We  will  take  a 
short  course  in  the  Thirty-nine  Articles."  He  then  drew 
from  his  pocket  a  little  memorandum  book,  and  pro- 
ceeded with  the  examination,  the  result  of  which  was 
that  one  of  the  candidates  was  put  back.  His  only  re- 
ply was  :  "  What  shall  I  do?  I  have  got  my  surplice  to 
preach  next  Sunday."  Candidates  who  feel  that  before 
they  are  ordained  they  have  to  pass  another  ordeal  on 
the  part  of  those  who  are  charged  with  the  solemn  duty 
of  an  examination,  would  not  come  up  here  so  illy  pre- 
pared. 

Rev.  D».  Stubbs  : — We  all  concur  with  the  views 
just  expressed  by  the  reverend  gentleman  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Canons.  I  am  sorry  to  hear  such  a  confession 
with  reference  to  New  York.  What  I  object  to  is  this, 
that  certain  details  are  presented  which  can  not  be 
complied  with  in  different  parts  of  the  country. 

A  Deputy. — Is  not  this  whole  thing  already  in  the 
hands  of  the  bishop  V  1  see  a  great  many  things  that 
can  be  said  against  this  canon.  For  instance,  a  bishop 
of  one  diocese  may  have  peculiar  views ;  and  a  student 
of  his  views  would  be  considered  as  prepared ;  but  if  he 
should  not  be  au  fail  in  another  school  of  theology,  he 
might  be  rejected.  Bishops  already  have  this  whole  mat- 
ter under  their  control. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin. — There  is  one  idea  in  con- 
nection with  this  subject  which  seems  not  to  have  been 
brought  forward,  and  that  is,  that  the  whole  Church  of 
the  United  States  is  interested  in  the  examination  of 
candidates  in  each  diocese.  It  is  not  the  particular  dio- 
cese alone  wherein  the  examination  takes  place  that  is 
interested  in  the  proper  qualifications  of  the  candidate 
who  is  to  be  ordained  to  the  ministry.  That  man,  if  he 
is  ordained  a  priest,  may  go  to  any  part  of  the  United 
States  as  a  priest  of  this  Church.  We  are  all  therefore 
interested  that  the  examinations  in  every  way  should  be 


77 


sufficient.  It  is  not  proposed  to  interfere  with  the  hish- 
ops  at  all ;  and  so  tar  as  the  bishop  actually  attends  per- 
onally  to  the  examinations  in  the  diocese,  we  leave  the 
bielv)p  of  each  diocese  to  determine  who  shall  be  a  dea- 
con or  a  priest.  But  the  trouble  is,  that  by  this  power  to 
appoint  a  committee  of  presbyters  to  conduct  the  exam- 
ination, the  responsibility  is  thrown  from  him,  and  then 
afterwards  we  cannot  find  where  the  responsibility  is 
when  an  incompetent  priest  is  found  in  the  ministry. 
This  amendment  to  the  canon  puts  it  in  his  way  to  adopt 
this  method  of  having  a  permanent  committee,  or  a  per- 
manent chaplain,  or  something  of  that  kind,  that  shall 
secure  proper  examinations.  Then,  as  for  the  examina- 
tion being  in  part  in  writing,  if  the  wrong  man  is  found 
to  be  in  the  ministry,  there  is  the  record  of  his  examina- 
tion, under  which  be  was  admitted  by  his  bishop.  The 
record  is  intended  to  protect  the  whole  Church  and  make 
the  examiners  responsible ;  the  record  is  there  against 
them  if  they  admit  an  incompetent  man,  or  reject  a  man 
who  passes  a  good  examination.  As  to  the  number  of 
examiners,  the  difficulty  suggested  by  the  delegate  from 
the  Dioce.se  of  Texas  is  for  Texas  and  some  other  dio- 
ceses an  importan  t  one,  but  is  it  not  as  great  now  ?  The 
bishop  must  have  two  presbyters  with  him  when  he  ex- 
amines candidates  for  priests'  orders,  unless  you  alter  the 
canon  that  now  exists.  I  call  the  attention  of  the  Con- 
vention to  this  point,  that  as  the  canon  now  stands  the 
bishop  must  have  two  presbyters  with  him ;  I  do  not  see 
why  his  substituted  committee  should  not  be  three  pres- 
byters; but  I  agree  with  the  proposition  of  the  commit- 
tee that  it  should  be  reduced  to  one  if  that  should  be 
thought  best. 

Rev.  Mr.  Gadsden,  of  South  Carolina. — I  am  not  sat- 
isfied with  the  explanation  of  the  committee  with  regard 
to  the  preservation  of  papers.  I  think  there  is  scarcely 
any  man  on  this  floor  who  will  be  disposed  to  say  that 
when  he  was  examined  for  Deacons'  or  Priests'  orders  he 
had  attained  to  that  ripeness  in  theological  lore  that  he 
would  be  willing  to  stand  on  his  first  examination.  Are 
we  to  suppose  that  candidates  at  first  are  prepared  thor- 
oughly on  all  theological  matters,  and  that  a  record 
should  be  kept  against  them;  and  notwithstanding  their 
minds  may  enlarge  and  they  attain  profounder  views, 
are  they  to  be  leterred  back  to  their  first  step ?•  it  is 
impossible  that  the  ecclesiastical  study  that  any  one  can 
give  to  theology  for  three  years  can  at  all  compass  the 
immense  field  that  lies  in  every  part  of  it.  If  you  fix  a 
limit  10  the  time  for  which  these  records  shall  be  pre- 
served, so  that  if  the  candidate  should  be  unjustly  dealt 
with,  an  appeal  might  lie,  then  ihe  record  would  be  use- 
ful, though  I  do  not  see  how  an  appeal  could  be  taken. 
If  they  are  to  be  kept  as  records  which  are  always  to  be 
referred  to,  you  may  have  a  gentleman  who  had  some 
crude  notions  when  he  was  ordained,  who  may  have  his 
written  examination  brought  forth  and  arrayed  against 
him,  when  in  fact  he  has  entirely  reviewed  the  sub- 
ject, and  taken  broader,  wiser,  and  more  scriptural  views. 


I  object  to  any  such  cast  iron  plan  as  this,  by  which  we 
are  to  be  fastened  down  to  one  particular  system,  and 
by  which  the  candidate's  written  examination  is  to  be 
his  record  through  all  his  ministry.  I  am  in  favor  of 
one  chaplain  and  an  assistant.  I  have  known  candidates 
fail  to  be  examined  on  account  of  the  failure  of  some 
members  of  the  examining  committee  to  be  present — a 
difficulty  that  is  increased  by  having  three  examiners. 
I  think  it  is  unwise  to  fix  ourselves  upon  any  absolute 
system  from  which  we  cannot  depart.  Then,  again,  have 
you  any  assurance  at  all  that  the  Bishops  are  going  to 
accept  this?  They  are  charged  with  this  matter.  At 
last  the  responsibility  rests  with  the  Bishop.  The  pres- 
byters united  with  him  in  the  examination  are  called  in 
to  assist  him,  but  at  last  they  cannot  force  him  to  ordain 
and  they  cannot  hinder  him  from  ordaining.  Where  is 
the  reason  or  use  of  absolutely  fixing  a  system  from 
which  there  can  be  no  departure,  and  which  may  lead  to 
great  inconvenience,  and  which  cannot  result  in  prevent- 
ing an  ordination  or  forcing  it.  I  trust  this  canon  will 
not  pass.  I  believe  the  system  as  now  arranged  is  far 
more  suitable,  especially  to  that  part  of  the  country  from 
which  I  come. 

Mr. . — I  was  about  to  touch   upou   the  same 

points  as  those  treated  of  by  the  deputy  from  South  Car- 
olina. I  will  add  one  other  suggestion,  that  is,  the  diffi- 
culty of  keeping  in  the  arcliives  so  many  worthless  pa- 
pers. If  they  are  to  be  kept  from  generation  to  genera- 
tion, what  shall  we  do  for  the  accommodation  of  these 
papers  ?  There  they  are  only  as  a  nuisance  iu  the  way 
of  anybody  who  wishes  to  look  through  the  Episcojjul 
archives  I  approve  of  all  the  other  jiart  of  this  canon- 
I  approve  especially  of  the  examination  being  in  writing  ; 
but  after  ordination  has  passed  away,  what  possible  pur- 
pose can  these  papers  serve  except  to  be  iu  the  way  of 
the  Bishop  and  other  parties  examining  the  archives  of 
the  Church '?  i  move  to  amend  the  report  of  the  com- 
mittee by  striking  out  of  the  first  section  the  words 
"  and  the  manuscripts  prepared  therein  sliall  be  preserved 
in  the  episcopal  archives  of  the  diocese  in  which  such 
examinations  are  respectively  held." 

Dr.  Or.  C.  SiiATTiCK — referred  to  liis  experience  as  to 
the  examniation  of  .students  of  medicine,  lie  thought 
as  great  care  should  be  taken  in  the  examination 
of  candidates  for  the  ministry  as  m  the  examination  of 
persons  to  be  admitted  to  the  practice  of  medicine.  ^Ve 
always  have  a  written  examination  and  keep  it.  We 
have  these  written  proofs  to  hold  up  for  years  as  a  jus- 
tification for  our  admitting  them  to  practice  medicine. 
They  show  that  when  a  man  has  studied  three  years  he 
knows  a  little  .something.  Whenever  an  examination 
is  called  in  question,  we  have  the  papcrs^to  refer  to,  to 
show  that  the  person  was  qualified  to  receive  the  de- 
gree of  a  doctor  of  medicine.  We  do  not  consider  that 
a  person  is  qualified  without  passing  a  satisfactory  ex- 
amination before  six  or  eight  persons. 

Rev.  Dr.  Uarh  : — It  has  ever  been  the  custom  of  this 


78 


Church  to  establish  rules  by  which  the  bishop  must 
be  governed  with  regard  to  persons  to  be  ordained. 
Among  the  other  specific  rules  that  we  have  in  relation 
to  this  matter,  is  this  :  "  The  examination  must  take 
place  in  the  presence  of  the  bishop  and  two  or  more 
presbyters."  I  presume  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  if 
a  bishop  should  undertake  to  ordain  any  candidate  to 
the  ministry  without  an  examination  conducted  by 
presbyters  as  well  as  by  himself,  he  would  be  liable  to 
degradation  for  this  plain  violation  of  the  canon.  This 
is  enough  to  show  that  it  is  competent  for  this  House  to 
legislate  in  regard  to  the  matter  of  examinations.  The 
object  of  the  canons  throughout  seems  to  be  the  obtain- 
ing of  right  doctrine  on  the  part  of  persons  to  be 
ordained.  Their  object  seems  to  be  also  to  see  that 
these  persons  shall  be  well  qualified  to  teach  those  doc- 
trines to  the  people. 

In  order  to  secure  this  end  is  it  not  most  desirable 
that  the  candidate  for  the  ministry  should  look  forward 
to  an  examination  as  an  important  thing  ?  That  which 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Haight  has  said  with  regard  to  the  Diocese 
of  New  York  is  certainly  not  peculiar  to  that  diocese. 
It  belongs  to  the  diocese  in  which  I  live;  and  I  fear  it 
belongs  to  the  dioceses  generally  ;  persons  appointed 
to  examine  not  having  been  accustomed  to  such  work, 
fail  to  perform  it  in  the  most  effectual  manner.  They 
have  little  time  to  prepare  for  it,  and  when  the  examin- 
ation comes  on  they  are  rather  afraid,  in  some  instances, 
of  coming  to  close  quarters  with  a  student.  Veiy  fre- 
quently it  happens  that  a  person  appointed  to  examine, 
has  lately  had  his  mind  occupied  with  some  out- 
of-the-way  topic,  and  is  for  the  time  riding  that  as  a 
hobby  ;  and  although  it  is  a  matter  simply  of  private 
opinion,  he  occupies  the  time  of  the  board  with  the  dis- 
cussion of  this  matter.  When  1  was  examined,  many 
years  ago,  for  orders,  two  reverend  presbyters  who 
conducted  the  examination,  almost  at  the  beginning  of 
the  hour  which  was  given  to  the  subject  of  the  evidences 
of  Christianity,  began  a  dispute  among  themselves  with 
regard  to  the  sufficiency  of  Campbell's  answer  to  Ilume 
in  tlie  matter  of  miracles.  This  discussion  occupied  the 
whole  hour ;  and  I  went  from  the  examination  scot-free  ; 
as  a  young  man  would  do,  I  told  this  far  and  wide  ;  and 
who  can  doubt  that  the  effect  was  to  cause  students  to 
look  forward  to  an  examination  as  a  trifle.  That  which 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Haight  alleged,  is  true.  Examinations  are 
too  often  sham  and  an  injury  to  the  Church.  It  is  alto- 
gether in  our  power,  if  not  to  prevent,  at  least  to 
diminish,  this  crying  evil. 

Mr. .     We   hear   strange  things  in  these 

two  large  cities.  I  do  not  believe  that  the  evils 
which  we  have  heard  of  here,  exist  throughout  the  land, 
by  any  means.  I  am  sure  they  do  not  exist  in  every 
diocese.  I  can  see  evil  attendant  upon  the  bishop  be- 
ing allowed  to  appoint  a  chaplain  to  examine  all  can- 
didates. We  all  know  that  every  bishop  is  likely  to  be 
particular  upon  some  points   that  are  by  no  means  es- 


sential to  a  minister's  usefulness  in  the  Church  of  God. 
I  am  free  to  say  that  I  knew  more  about  some 
great  doctrines  when  I  first  entered  the  ministry  than 
I  know  now.  I  recollect  a  young  man  who  came  into 
the  Diocese  of  Kentucky  and  preached,  in  the  presence 
of  one  of  our  most  experienced  presbyters,  his  first  ser- 
mon. Said  I :  "  What  do  you  think  of  this  man's 
preaching  ?  Do  you  think  he  is  qualified  for  such  a  po- 
sition ?"  "  I  do  not  know :  he  has  settled,  I  believe,  to 
his  own  satisfaction,  that  great  doctrine  of  justification 
by  faith  in  his  first  sermon.  I  have  observed  that 
young  men  take  up  that  doctrine  or  some  other  great 
doctrine  and  settle  it  the  first  time  they  preach." 
Suppose  a  young  man  comes  before  a  chaplain  and  the 
chaplain  has  some  peculiar  views  on  some  subject, 
perhaps  some  one  that  is  the  subject  of  dispute.  Because 
he  passes  a  good  examination  on  that  subject,  at  least 
to  the  satisfaction  of  the  chaplain,  he  is  admitted  into 
the  ministry,  and  at  last  it  appears  that  he  is  not  a 
practical  man  ;  that  he  is  a  man  of  theory  rather  than 
practice.  I  see  evils  connected  with  this  recommen- 
dation. To  my  own  mind  there  are  great  evils,  and  I 
much  prefer  to  leave  the  matter  as  it  is.  I  do  not  be- 
lieve that  all  examinations  are  sham.  If  they  are  in 
New  York  and  Pennsylvania — and  I  trust  they  are  not 
here — I  know  very  well  for  one  that  my  own  theological 
kniivvledge  was  put  to  a  severe  test,  though  I  thought 
when  I  began  that  I  knew  a  great  deal.  I  for  one  am 
not  prepared  to  vote  for  that  amendment ;  I  am  pre- 
pared therefore  to  move  the  indefinite  postponement  of 
that  canon. 

Another  Deputy  : — I  desire  to  speak  a  moment  or 
two  upon  this  great  question.  I  very  heartily  approve 
of  and  endorse  the  report  of  this  Committee  on  Canons  ; 
and  I  do  hope  from  the  depths  of  my  soul  that  it,  with 
some  slight  amendment,  will  pass  the  House.  We  must 
all  concur  in  one  thing,  and  that  is  the  need  of  the  ele- 
vation of  the  standard  of  admission  of  candidates  into 
our  ministry.  It  must  be  admitted  by  the  different 
members  of  this  House  who  have  had  anything  to  do 
with  the  examination  of  candidates  for  the  ministry, 
that,  in  a  fearful  number  of  cases,  it  amounts  to  little 
more  than  a  sham,  when  it  ought  to  be  made  an  intense 
reality.  I  therefore  heartily  concur  in  the  report  of  the 
committee  just  submitted  to  this  House,  with  one 
slight  departure  therefrom,  made  by  the  member  sitting 
by  my  side  with  reference  to  the  indefinite  preservation 
of  written  answers.  I  heartily  approve,  as  I  am  sure 
the  wisdom  of  this  House  must  approve  of  the  examin- 
ation being  a  written  one  ;  but  I  fail  to  see  the  wis- 
dom of  preserving  those  written  documents  after  the 
examination  is  ended. 

Rev.  Mr.  Cobbett  supposed  that  every  presbyter  on 
the  floor  of  the  House  found  the  examination  all  suffi- 
cient when  brought  up  for  examination.  He  had  con- 
versed, not  long  since,  with  the  professor  of  one  of  the 
theological  seminaries,  and  he   made  this  remark,  that 


79 


those  who  passed  the  best  examination  were  not  by  any 
means  those  who  were  the  most  successful  in  winning 
souls  to  Christ  when  they  went  out  into  the  Lord's 
vineyard. 

Rev.  Dr.  Shelton  : — I  wish  to  say  that  I  hope  that 
everything  will  be  done  that  can  be  done  on  the  part  of 
ihis  House  to  dignify  the  examinations  of  our  young 
men.  I  wish  to  solemnize  that  event.  I  wish  to  have 
it  done  in  the  most  solemn  manner  ;  and  as  to  individ- 
ual clergymen  who  have  not  paid  any  particular  atten- 
tion to  the  examination  of  students,  it  is  most  incompe- 
tent for  them  to  conduct  examinations.  I  do  say  there 
ought  to  be  a  settled  body  of  men  whose  business  it 
should  be  to  prepare  themselves  for  it.  To  take  an 
ordinary  country  clergyman,  or  a  city  clergyman  that 
has  not  paid  any  particular  attention  to  these  things, 
and  call  upon  him  to  make  an  examination  of  a  young 
man  for  the  ministry — I  won't  say  that  it  is  impossible 
for  him  to  do  it ;  but  I  do  say  that  gentlemen  who  are 
prepared  for  it,  and  who  have  made  a  business  of  pre- 
paring themselves  for  it,  will  do  it  much  better.  Then, 
again,  when  young  men  are  required  to  put  their  answers 
in  writing  it  is  altogether  a  more  solemn  act,  and 
one  which  they  would  more  dread.  They  ought  to  be 
prepared  to  do  these  things,  and  I  believe  it  would  be 
the  means  of  advancement  in  our  theological  education 
if  carried  thoroughly  into  effect. 

Rev.  Mr.  Marple — said  that  he  had  not  liked  this 
canon  in  many  respects,  but  that  the  arguments  used 
against  it  made  him  think  he  was  mistaken  in  not  liking 
it.  He  did  not  believe  that  it  was  a  fact  that  those  who 
passed  the  poorest  examinations  turned  out  the  best 
men.  He  did  not  believe  anytliing  of  the  kind,  but  he 
believed  with  Macaulay,  that  it  will  be  found  to  be  true 
that  those  first  in  the  competition  of  schools  are  found 
to  be  the  first  in  the  competition  of  life.  It  will  be 
found  to  be  equally  true  in  reference  to  the  Church, 
and  he  hoped  that  the  idea  would  never  go  abroad  that 
the  poorer  the  examination  tlie  better  the  minister. 

Mr.  Welsh  : — I  have  heard  nothing  from  the  Laity 
upon  this  subject,  who  are  somewhat  interested  in  it. 
I  think  the  Laity  are  deeply  interested,  because  either 
we  are  to  have  a  local  Church  or  a  general  Church.  It 
is  true  that  the  dioceses  diifer  ;  and  that  is  the  very 
reason  why  we  should  have  a  general  canon  to  insure 
uniformity.  Sometimes  a  young  man  who  cannot  pass 
an  examination  in  one  diocese  will  go  into  another  and 
be  admitted  and  then  come  back.  There  is  one  thing 
that  makes  me  exceedingly  anxious  that  this  verv  [iro- 
vision  as  reported  by  the  committee  should  be  carried 
out.  If  there  is  any  peculiarity  in  the  Episcopal  Church 
it  is,  that  she  does  require  her  ministry  to  be  thoroughly 
educated.  There  is  not  a  congregation  that  has  not 
some  educated  persons  in  it  who  cannot  be  administered 
to  by  those  who  are  murdering  the  King's  Englisli  all 
the  time.  We  need  skilful  leadens,  and  the  day  is 
coining  when  the' Laity  will  marshal  around  these  lead- 


ers and  do  a  work  never  done  before.  If  we  are  to  have 
these  ill-trained  ministers  thrust  into  the  ministry,  we 
shall  be  sowing  the  wind  and  reaping  the  whirlwind  ; 
and  we  shall  be  bringing  ourselves  down  below  many 
other  religious  bodies  that  have  advantages  over  us  in 
that  department.  I  do  hope  that  this  canon  will  pass 
with  all  its  provisions ;  and  let  all  young  men  preparing 
for  the  ministry  know  that  the  examination  is  to  be 
thorough  and  they  will  prepare  themselves  for  it.  Now 
tliere  is  a  disposition  to  squeeze  them  through  too  rapid- 
ly, and  I  do  not  wonder  at  the  Bishops  passing  them 
when  they  see  they  are  so  much  needed.  The  Deputy 
from  Massachusetts  spoke  of  the  examination  of  medical 
students  :  I  know  that  in  medical  colleges  it  is  seldom 
when  a  man  has  paid  for  his  tickets  that  he  is  turned 
back  ;  some  I  know  are  ;  but  from  the  want  of  skill  of 
a  good  many  who  enter  the  profession  I  premise  the 
difficulty  is  the  other  way.  So  I  think  we  need  to  throw 
guards  around  us,  seeing  there  is  so  earnest  a  desire  on 
the  part  of  the  Bishopis  to  have  more  clergymen. 

Rev.   Mr  Gasmans,  of  Nebraska: — I    would   like  to 
say  one  word  upon  this  subject.     I  think  we  had  bet- 
ter let   well  enough  alone.     The  Church  in  this  coun- 
try has   gone  on  well   with  the  present  canon,  and  is 
going   on   well.     The  dangers  spoken   of,   I  think,  are 
more  imaginary  than    real.     As   for  the  examinations 
being  sham,  if  they  have  been  sham  and  have  admitted 
the  men  that  are  now  serving  in  the  ministry  of  the 
Church,  I  say,  for  one,  let  them  continue  to  be  shams. 
If  we,  by  a  sham  examination,  can  admit  such  men  as 
we  have  serving  in  the  ministry  of  the  Church  of  God 
in  this  country,  I  say  let  the  canon  stand.     We  do  not 
want  to   make  the  fence   any  higher   over  which   our 
young  men  have  to  walk  in  order  to  enter  the  minis- 
try.    We  do  not  want  to  add  one  bar  to  it.     I  remem- 
ber well  the  time  when  I  was  led  up  to  be  examined. 
It  was  no  sham.     We  have  heard  about   a   classically 
educated   ministry.     Now,    sir,  I    say    this,  that    it  is 
time,  when  this  great  continent  is  crying  to  us  for  men 
able  to  preach  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  that  we  should  not 
add  to  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  men  entering  the 
ministry.     If  it  is  possible,  we  should   even   make  it 
easier  than  it  is.     There  are  young  men  who  would  fail 
to  stand  an   examination   on  doctrines,  and  yet,  who 
would  do  so  if  examined  in  the  Word  of  God,  and  that 
is  what  is  to  be  preached,  be  the  congregation  never  so 
refined.     I,  for   one,  in   all   humility,  would   say  that 
the  latter  should  not  be  prevented  from  entering  upon 
the  work.     I  fully  appreciate  an  educated  ministry,  but 
there  is  such   a   thing  as  going  too  far  in  that  matter  ; 
there  is  such   a   thing  as  being  too  particular  and  too 
nice  in  this  matter;  and  it  has  often  been  said  with  re- 
gard to  our  Church,  and  there  is  some  truth  in  it,  that 
it  is  dying  of  respectability.     I  tell  you,  gentlemen,  we 
have  to   wake  up    to  one  thing  and   one  fact,  and   it  is 
this,   that  if  we  could  have  a  little  more  unction  in  our 
hearts,  if  we  could  have   a    little  more  of  the  spirit  of 


80 


Wesley  in  our  hearts,  we  would  do  well,  and,  in  many  re- 
spects, be  improved.     I  am  perfectly  aware  that  at  times 
young  men  have   been  admitted   to  the  ministry    who 
ought  not  to  be  there  ;  but  make  your  canons  as  strong 
as  you  please ;  make  your   committees   as   learned  as 
you  please,  you  will  have  the  same  difEculties  to  con- 
tend with.     There  always  will  be  men  entering  the  min 
istry  who  will  be  unfit  for  it.     Remember  that  when  the 
committee  of  examination  consisted  of  the  Lord  Him- 
self, Judas  was  one  of  the  twelve.     You  cannot  guard 
against  this  thing  ;  and  you  simply — be  it  spoken  with 
all  humility — keep  out  of  the  ministry  men  who  ought 
to  enter  it,  and  you  will  admit  men,  because  of  their 
scholastic  capacity,  who  ought   never  to  enter  therein. 
Rev.  Dr.  J.  T.  Wheat,  of  Tennessee : — May  I  be  al- 
lowed to  say,  in  the  hearing  of  this  Convention,  that 
in  more  than    forty  years  in  the  ministry,  it  is  the  re- 
sult of  my  observation  and  experience,  that  the  dangei' 
is  much  greater  in  the  way  of  affording  increased  facili- 
ties than  in  the  way  of  restraint?     I  am  fully  persuad- 
ed in  my  own  mind  that  I  ought  not  to  have  been  ad- 
mitted, for  want  of  proper  qualifications,  when    I  was. 
I  do  think   it   would  have  been  better  for  me  if  I  had 
been  kept  three  years  longer  preparing  for  the  minis- 
try.    I  look  back  upon  my  first  efforts  in  the  ministry 
with  the  recollection  that  the  examination  was  not  suf- 
ficiently thorough — that   I   was  admitted  without  the 
requisite  qualifications.     And  I  recollect  that  St.  Paul 
after       his     miraculous      conversion,       spent     three 
whole  years  in  Arabia  before  he  thought  it  expedient 
to  enter  the  ministry ;  and  I  recollect  that  our  blessed 
Lord  Himself  was  thirty  years  of  age  before  He  entered 
the  ministry.     I  do  believe  that  the   Church  has  suf- 
fered and  will   continue  to  suffer  from   the  exercise  of 
the  ministry  by  inexperienced  and  incompetent  persons. 
I  meant,  in  reference   to   my  own  case,  to  .say  that  in 
these  latter  years  of  my  ministry  I  have  learned  that  it 
is  better  that  a  man,  before  he  is  put  into  a  responsible 
position,  as  a  teacher  and  guide  for  others,  should  have 
a  matured  character  and  mind.     I  have  not  reference 
so  much   to   scholastic  attainments,  though   the   most 
thorough    course  of  academic  studies,  it  seems  to   me, 
is  almost  indispensable  to  discharge  the  duties  of  the 
ministry ;  and  I  am  in  favor  of  the  canon,  as  reported 
by  the  committee.     I  am  in  favor  of  hedging  around, 
by  even  still  greater  hindrances,  the  entrance  into  the 
ministry  of  the  Church,  of  persons  not  properly  quali- 
fied. 

Mr. : — I  am  sorry  to  say  that  I  am  not  in  favor 

of  the  canon.  It  is  true  that  it  is  a  great  and  important 
thing  for  every  minister  of  the  Church  to  be  a  profound 
scholar,  a  profound  theologian ;  and  that  must  be  taken 
care  of  in  regard  to  some  of  the  great  and  important  po- 
sitions in  the  Church ;  but,  sir,  we  can  learn  from  our 
enemies.  The  Romish  Church  boasts,  witli  some 
measure  of  truth,  that  they  insist  on  the  highest  cul- 
ture of  their  priests.     But  it  is  well  to  know  that  they 


have  priests  who  are  ignorant  men,  and  who  are  sent 
out  because  adapted  to  the  location  to  which  they  are 
sent.  They  mingle  with  the  ignorant  and  teach  them, 
and  are  some  of  the  most  important  men,  in  point  of 
practical  work,  in  the  cliurch.  It  is  the  same  with  the 
Methodist  Church.  Some  of  its  most  efficient  men  are 
those  who  never  learned  Greek  or  Latin,  and  who  are 
distinguished  for  their  eloquence  and  for  their  power  in 
bringing  souls  to  Christ.  There  is  truth  on  both  sides 
of  the  argument,  and  truth  very  well  uttered  ;  but  this 
should  be  considered,  that  the  Church  should  have  its 
heavy  artillery  and  its  light  artillery  ;  we  should  have 
men  of  the  most  profound  erudition,  who  are  most  pro- 
found theologians  ;  and  then  we  should  have  men  who, 
though  not  classically  educated,  are  practical,  of  sound 
judgment,  and  who  can,  of  course,  speak  the  King's 
English  properly.  It  is  a  common  thing  to  find  men 
who  have  not  time  nor  means  to  go  to  college  to  learn 
Hebrew,  Greek  and  Latin — men  of  fine  judgment,  pass- 
able English  scholars,  fine  speakers,  and  who  are  very 
familiar  with  the  plain  English  Bible.  These  men 
would  be  wholly  excluded  from  the  Church  if  you  built 
up  any  higher  the  walls  of  restriction  around  the  minis- 
try ;  and  T  therefore  do  hope  that  this  canon  will  not 
be  adopted.  Let  us  have  men  of  the  profoundest  schol- 
arship and  theological  knowledge  on  the  one  side :  and 
let  us  have  men  of  less  attainments,  but  men  of  ability 
and  of  earnest  hearts  to  go  forth  everywhere.  As  soon 
as  you  have  these  requirements,  that  every  man  shall 
be  a  scholar  and  pass  an  examination  as  a  scholar  be- 
fore he  can  go  into  the  ministry,  there  is  a  large  body 
of  earnest  men  looking  towards  the  ministr}^  who  will 
be  shut  out. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Mead,  of  Connecticut : — While  the  gen- 
tleman has  been  giving  his  views  of  the  subject,  the 
thought  occurred  to  me  that  if  many  of  our  presbyters 
were  sent  back  to  their  studies  to  learn  what  the  can- 
ons teach,  we  should  be  saved  long  speeches.  The  gen- 
tleman has  referred  to  a  point  which  is  already  provid- 
ed for  by  the  canons.  Let  him,  with  any  other  presby- 
ter, sign  a  testimonial  to  the  effect  that  they  believe  a  man 
possesses  extraordinary  qualifications,  and  their  certifi- 
cate is  equivalent  for  that  man  to  a  diploma.  Do  you. 
want  to  change  that  ?  We  want  ministers  of  the  Gos- 
pel, but,  as  a  certain  Bishop  once  said  to  a  very  incom- 
petent man,  "you  ought  not  to  go."  "  The  Lord  hath 
need  of  me,"  said  the  examinee.'  "Ah!  I  believe  He 
once  wanted  an  ass,  but  we  do  not  want  them  in  this 
Church."'  [Laughter.]  Tlie  object  of  this  amendment 
is  to  strengthen  the  hands  of  the  Bishops  in  the  exami- 
nation of  those  who  have  full  qualifications,  those  who 
come  before  the  Examining  Committee  with  a  diploma, 
or  an  examination  equivalent  to  that ;  men  who  come, 
perhaps,  with  a  second  diploma,  from  the  Theological 
Seminary.  In  the  diocese  frum  which  this  amendment 
originated,  I  once  lived  awhile.  I  saw  then  examina- 
tions fully  as  rigid  as  any  I  liave  known.     I  remember 


81 


one  instance,  at  least,  where   a  gentleman   presented 
himself  for  examination,  with  the  parchment  of  the  Gen- 
eral Theological  Seminary,  and  wo  had,  in  conscience, 
to  say,  "  It  is  necessary,  on  some  branches,  you  go  back 
to  your  studies  again  ; "  and  we  sent  him  back  before 
we  would  pass  him.     It  has  been  alleged  that  the  Bishop, 
albeit  he  is  rcquii-ed  to  examine  with  the  presbyters, 
can  ordain  a  candidate  in  spite  of  them,  in  spite  even  of 
the  Standing  Committee  ;  but  let  any  Bishop  ordain  a 
man  that  has  been  rejected  by  the  examining  presby- 
ters, and  he  will  find  himself  subjected  to  trial  for  the 
violation  of  the  canons.     I  attended  one  examination 
under  these  circumstances,  at  the  time  when  our  canons 
required  what  they  do  not  now  reijuire,  that  is,  that  the 
candidate  with  full  qualilications  should,  before  he  was 
passed,  give  an  account  of  his  faith  in  the  Latin  tongue. 
The  examination  took  place  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia. 
Two  of  the  examiners  have  since  been  Bishops  of  the 
Churcli ;  oni.',  the  aged  and  venerable  BLshop  of  Wis- 
consin ;    mj'self,   the  third  ;  and  another,   the   saintly 
Montgomery.     The  Bishop  told  us  he  had  appointed  the 
next  day  for  the  ordination,  and  had  given  notice  of  it. 
We  examined  the  man  in  various  matter.s,  and  we  requir- 
ed him  to  give  account  of  his  faith  in  the  Latin  tongue. 
It  was  an  amusing  thing.     He  had  looked  into  a  Latin 
dictionary  and  had   selected  the  origin  of  the  words, 
nouns  in  their  first  case,  and  verbs  in  the  first  person, 
singular  indicative ;  in  that  manner  he  had  made  out 
something  like  the  Latin  sentence,  Gallus  tuus  ego  et 
nunquara  animus.     [Laughter.]     My  brethren  sat,  not 
knowing  what  to  do.     The  Bishop  asked  our  opinion 
with  regard  to  the  examination.     I  waited  for  them ; 
they  said  nothing.     Said  I :   "Bishop,  I  sit  here  as  an 
examiner,  feeling  the  responsibility  of  my  act  to  Christ 
and  the  Church.     I  have  a  conscience ;  and  if  you  had, 
tenfold  more    than  you  have  done,   committed   your- 
self, I  must  say,  before  God  and  you,  I  cannot  pass  this 
man."     So  said  every  one  of  them.     This  man  was  a 
bush-lawyer  in  Pennsylvania.     He  was  sent  back,  and 
never  disgraced  the  Church  by  going  into  holy  orders. 
If  a  practising  physician  wants  to  enter  the  government 
service  as  sui'geon  in  the  army  or  navj%  what  coin'se  is 
pursued  ?     That  man  is  shut  up  for  hours,  and  written 
questions  are  put  to  him  and  he  has  to  give  written  an- 
swers, without  books  ;  and  oftentimes  in   the  case  of 
thirty  or  forty  examinees,  perhaps,  but  five  can  stand 
the  examination,  and  be  considered  qualified  to  go  and 
take  care  of  the  health  of  the  soldiers  and  sailors  of  our 
country.     Now,  shall  those  to  whom  is  committed  the 
charge  of  inquiring  who  is  worthy  to  represent  Christ 
in  His  vi.sible   Church  on  earth,  be  totally  reckless  in 
their  examinations  of  candidates,  and  open  the  doors  so 
wide  that  we  shall  not  merely  have  the  Gospel  preached 
as  foolishness,  but  foolish  preai:hing  of  the  Gospel  ?     I 
hope  this  canon  will  commend  itself,  not  only  to  com- 
mon sense,  but  to  the  love  of  tlie  Church  and  of  its 
Head,  and  that  we  shall  vote  in  the  fear  of  God. 

11 


Judge  Ooktngham: — I  believe  that  there  are  some 
oVjservations  made  by  those  opjiosed  to  the  amendment 
to  the  canon  that  do  not  relate  to  the  question  before 
the  Hou.se.  The  standard  of  education,  the  character 
of  the  education  required  for  admission  to  the  ministry 
is  not  affected  by  this  canon. 

The  .simple  question  is  whether  you  shall  devise  means 
that  will  surely  bring  out  upon  the  examination  wheth- 
er the  candidate  reaches  that  standard  or  not.  That  is 
the  point  in  hand,  and  that  alone.  I  <lo  not  see  that  this 
affects,  in  any  way,  the  standard  already  fixed  by  the 
canon  ;  but  it  merely  fixes  the  mode  by  which  the  ap- 
plicant is  brought  up  to  the  standard.  Reference  has 
been  made  to  the  proceedings  in  some  other  professions. 
I  will  say  something  with  regard  to  the  admission  of 
law  students  to  the  bar.  A  motion  was  formerlj'  made 
in  the  court,  and  it  was  made  known  that  an  individual 
had  applied  for  admission.  During  the  session  of  the 
court  a  committee  was  appointed,  and  they  met  in  the 
presence  of  the  judge,  and  some  few  questions  were 
asked,  and  the  person  was  admitted,  if  his  examination 
proved  satisfactory.  Afterwards  it  became  necessary 
to  appoint  a  standing  committee,  to  whom  the  applicant 
applied ;  he  is  thoroughly  examined  then  ;  and  there  is 
no  application  made  before  the  judge  until  the  commit- 
tee has  inquired  into  his  qualifications  ;  and  if  there  is 
any  difficulty,  he  is  sent  back  to  pursue  his  studies. 

Mr.  Chas.  C.  Tkowbkidge  : — As  I  am  aware  that 
many  lay  members  of  this  House  are  new  members, 
and  may  not  have  had  as  much  experience  upon  this 
subject  as  I  have  had,  I  beg  to  state  my  own  experi- 
ence as  the  secretary  of  a  Standing  Committee  of  a 
Western  dioce-se  for  30  years  past,  without  interrup- 
tion. My  experience  is  that,  in  that  diocese  it  has  been 
the  duty  of  the  Standing  Committee,  from  time  to  time, 
to  protest  against  the  attempts  (innocently,  in  most  cases) 
of  zealous  clergymen  to  introduce  into  the  ministry  per- 
sons who  were  not  qualified.  It  is  a  common  occurrence 
with  us,  and  upon  a  comparison  of  views  with  gentle- 
men from  other  dioceses,  I  am  told  it  is  a  very  common 
occurrence  in  Western  and  also  in  some  large  Eastern 
dioceses,  that  zealous  clergymen,  and  sometimes  anxious 
Bishops,  are  so  desirous  to  increase  the  ministry  that 
persons  are  proposed  who  really  are  not  competent ; 
and  when  the  Standing  Committee  take  into  considera- 
tion that  in  the  rapid  increase  of  our  Episcopate  these 
persons  may  soon  be  presented  for  that  high  office,  they 
feel  they  must  protest,  in  many  instances  at  the  thres- 
hold, against  the  attempts  to  introduce  these  unquali- 
fied persons  into  the  ministry.  I  merely  sjjeak  of  it  as 
a  matter  of  experience,  hoping  that  it  may  have  its 
weight  with  some  lay  members  of  the  Convention. 

l!ev.  Dr.  S.  P.  Pahkeb,  of  Mass.  :— The  subject  of 
examination  in  writing  strikes  me  favorably,  in  more 
ways  than  one — in  one  respect  that  has  not  been  sug- 
gested to  this  Convention.  I  can  conceive  of  cases  and 
circumstances  in  which  the  examination  in  writing,  thus 


82 


preserved,  shall  operate  in  defence  and  in  behalf  of  the 
candidates  for  the  ministry.  I  can  conceive  of  its  oper- 
ating as  a  restraint,  as  a  motive  for  carefulness  on  the 
part  of  the  Bishops  and  of  the  presbyters,  who  may  be 
inclined  to  press  their  peculiar  views  of  doctrine.  But 
in  that  respect,  it  is  possible  that  some  further  provi- 
sion may  be  necessary.  The  proposed  canon  provides 
for  the  preservation  of  the  examinations,  but  it  says 
nothing  about  their  being  accessible.  NovF,  it  seems  to 
me  that  if  they  are  worthy  of  preservation,  some  provi- 
sion should  be  made  for  inspecting  them,  if  there  be 
motive  therefor. 

The  motion  for  indefinite  postponement  was  then  put 
and  lost. 

The  question  then  recurred,  upon  striking  out  the  fol- 
lowing words:  "  and  the  manuscripts  prepared  therein 
shall  be  preserved  in  the  Episcopal  archives  of  the  dio- 
ceses in  which  such  examinations  are  respectively  held." 
Which  motion  was  lost. 

Rev.  Mr.  Rogers,  of  Texas,  moved  to  substitute  "one" 
for  "  three."     Agreed  to. 

The  Canon  as  amended  was  then  adopted. 

The  House  then  proceeded  to  the  oi  der  of  the  day — 
the  selection  of  a  place  for  the  next  Triennial  Conven- 
tion. 

On  motion  of  Judge  Sheffey,  of  Virginia,  the  vote  was 
taken  by  dioceses — one  vote  for  each  diocese, — resulting 
in  the  selection  of  Baltimore ;  and,  on  motion,  the  vote 
was  made  unanimous. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight— of  the  Committee  on  Canons,  sub- 
mitted a  report,  that  they  did  not  deem  it  expedient  to 
change  the  canon  by  which  it  is  made  obligatory  on  the 
clergy  of  a  diocese  to  use  occasional  prayers  set  forth  by 
the  Bishop  of  the  diocese. 

Rev.  Dr.  Stubbs  : — Inasmuch  as  I  took  the  respon- 
sibility of  proposing  an  amendment  to  that  canon,  it  be- 
ccmes  me  to  explain  my  reason,  and  also  to  take  leave 
to  call  the  attention  of  the  House  to  a  matter  which  I 
conceive  is  not  less  important  than  any  thing  which 
has  been  or  can  be  brought  before  this  House,  inasmuch 
as  it  aflTects  the  worship  and  service  of  Almighty  God. 
I  beg  leave  to  call  especial  attention  to  the  language 
of  the  canon  as  read  by  the  Rev.  Chairman  of  the  Com- 
mittee. 

Messages  16,  17,  18,  and  19  were  here  received  from 
the  House  of  Bishops. 

On  motion  of  Dr.  Haight,  numbers  16  and  19  were  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  Canons. 

Rev.  Dr.  Stubbs  (resuming) — I  beg  leave  to  call  the  at- 
tention of  the  House  to  the  language  of  the  canon  which  is 
this:  "the  Bishop  of  each  diocese  may  compose" — at  the 
end  of  it — "  whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  use  such  forms  in  his 
Church."  One  reason  why  I  brought  forward  an  altera- 
tion of  this  kind,  is  that  my  position  is  one  of  entire  disin- 
terestedness. There  are  .some  clergymen  in  certain  portions 
of  the  Church  who  may  have  suffered  personal  wrong,  and 


who  may  be  unwilling  therefore,  to  move  in  this  case.     But 
I  have  no  personal  wrongs  to  redress  ;  I   have   suffered  no 
personal  injury.     The  diocese   to  which   I  belong  has  been 
honored  by  three  prelates,  all   remarkable  for  their  sound 
learning  and  good  judgment.     All  have  been  men  who  can 
be  intrusted   witli   this   duty  to   put  forth  certain  forms  of 
prayer  and  thanksgiving  for  any  occasions,   ordinary  or  ex- 
traordinary.    They  have  all  been   animated  by  a   Catholic 
spirit  and  by  a  high  devotional  feeling  ;  and  I  undertake  to 
say  that  there  has  not  been  a  form  of  prayer  put  forth  in  the 
diocese,  from  the  days  of  Bishop  Croes  to  the  present  time, 
which  has  not  been  unexceptionable  in  form,  and  truly  cath- 
olic in  spirit ;  and   no   form   has  been   put  forth  which  all 
the  clergy  of  the  Church  have  not  been  able  to  use  without 
the  least  objection  ;  and  the  Bishops  of  the  diocese  have 
been  men  of  such  large  and  liberal  views  that  they  have  not 
imposed  them  upon  the  clergy  ;  and  during  the  recent  troub- 
le in  the  country,  though   the    Bishop  of  New  Jersey  put 
forth  a  prayer  perfectly  unexceptionable,  he  left  the  Presby- 
ters free  to  use   it  or  not.     I  am  satisfied  with  my  present 
relations  to  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey.     I    am    not  afraid 
that  forms  may  be   put  forth    which  I   or  my  congregation 
may  not  be  able  to  use.     I  do  not  wish  to  interfere  with  the 
power  of  the  Bishops  to  put  forth  forms  of  prayer  and  thanks- 
giving ;  they  may  put   forth  such   forms,  they  are  welcome 
so  far  as  I  am  concerned,    to   put   forth  as  many  forms  of 
prayer  and   thanksgiving   as   they    please.     1  believe  they 
have  the  inherent  power  to  do  so.     They  have  a  power  be- 
yond this  canon,   by  virtue  of  their  office,  to  put  forth  at 
any    time    such    forms  of  prayer  and   thanksgiving  as   in 
their  godly  judgment  may   be    necessary  for  the  use  of  the 
diocese  ;  and  I  would  be  the   last  man  that  would  attempt 
to  deprive    them    of  their  Divine  right,  a  right  always  ex- 
ercised in  the  Church   from  the  beginning  to  this  time,  and 
which  is  not  derived   from    this   cauon ;  aud  for  myself  I 
say  that  I  would  not  take  away  one  jot  or  tittle  of  the  power 
which  they  had  before  this  canon.     But    I   do  wish   to  pro" 
tect  the  clergy  and  laity  of  the   Clnu'ch   from  the  undue  ex- 
ercise of  this  power  by  men  who  cannot  be  qualified  to  put 
forth  such  forms  of  prayer   aud   thanksgiving  as  may  be  of 
benefit  to  the  Church.     That  is  my  object ;  1  claim  that  we 
shall  protect  clergy  and  laity  against   the  undue  exercise  of 
the  authority,  which  may  be  prejudicial  to  our  interests  aud 
the  interests  of  this  Church.     As  the    case   now  stands,  we 
are  exposed  to  the    very   worst  evils  that  ever  have  arisen 
from  extemporaneous  forms  of  worship.     We  object  to  ex- 
temporary forms  put  forth  by  the  brethren    of  the  denom- 
inations around  us — I  say  brethren,   in  the   truest   Christian 
sense  of  the  word.     We   say  that  in    this  extemporaneous 
service   they  very   often   introduce    their  private  opinions, 
their  political  views,    and  they  may  introduce  heretical  no- 
tions, and  they  may  use  language  whicli  is  not  proper  nor 
even  grammatical.  We  claim  that  we  have  a  form  of  prayer 
free  from  all  these  abuses.      Ours  is  perfect,  and  such  as 
a  congregation  can   unite  in  with  one  voice   and  one  heart 
and  all  say  amen.     By  giving  this  power  to  the  Bishojis  to 
put  forth  forms  of  prayer  and  thanksgiving  and  making  it 
incumbent  upon  us  to  use  them  on  all   occasions,   we  have 
the   worst  evils  connected  with    extemporaneous  worship, 
and  more  than  that  we  stereotype  them.     What  is  the  case 
now  ?  We  have  a  large   number  of  Bishops,  a  number  that 


83 


is  yearly  increasing,  and  if  each  one  of  this  number  can  put 
forth  such  forms,  they  may  introduce  heretical  views,  politi- 
cal views,  their  mere  private  opinions,  and  they  may  use 
language  which  we  do  not  beheve  to  be  correct  or  proper ; 
and  yot  it  matters  not  what  the  language  is  or  the  views, 
according  to  this  canon  it  is  absolutely  iucunilient  to  use 
them.  I  protest  against  it ;  I  will  not  have  such  a  burden 
laid  upon  my  conscience  that  any  Bishop  may  put  forth  a 
prayer — and  such  have  been  put  forth — containing  language 
which  I  believe  should  not  be  offered  in  any  prayer  to  Al- 
mighty God,  and  I  must  use  it.  I  stand  upon  my  rights,  and 
I  will  not  use  it.  If  he  introduces  political  notions  or  he- 
retical, I  will  become  amenable  to  the  law  and  subject  my- 
self first  to  a  public  trial,  and  will  be  condemned  by  a  court  of 
justice,  before  I  would  be  condemned  by  my  own  conscience. 
Because  if  I  use  such  language  as  I  can  not  use  from  my  heart, 
I  am  a  hypocrite,  and  the  prayer  of  a  hypocrite  can  never 
rise  to  the  skies  ;  and  every  clergyman  who  shall  be  bound 
to  use  such  prayers  as  he  can  not  use  from  his  heart,  be- 
comes thereby  guilty  of  hypocrisy  before  God  and  His 
Church.  Now  shall  he  be  forced  to  commit  such  a  crime  as 
that?  Shall  he  be  forced  to  stand  up  as  the  ambassador  of 
Christ  and  use  language  which  he  does  not  believe  ?  God 
forbid !  I  beg  the  Convention  not  to  impose  this  burden 
upon  us,  not  to  force  us  to  use  language  which  we  can  not 
use  from  the  heart  as  well  as  with  the  lips.  And  not  only 
the  clergy,  but  the  laity  of  our  congregations  are  obliged  to 
hear  and  use  such  forms  whether  they  believe  in  them 
or  not ;  I  say,  sir,  this  is  the  most  arbitrary  power  which  can 
be  exercised,  and  I  beg  and  implore  you  to  repeal  the  can- 
on which  to  us  is  such  a  burden  as  that  upon  every  man's 
conscience. 

Message  No.  20  was  here  received  from  the  House  of 
Bishops,  announcing  that  they  had  nominated  the  Rev. 
Benjamin  Wistar  Morris  to  be  Misssionary  Bishop  of 
Oregon  and  Washington  Territory. 

On  motion  of  Judge  Otis,  it  was  made  the  order  of 
the  day  for  to-morrow  at  twelve  o'clock. 

Rev.  Dr.  Stubbs,  (resuming)  : — A  few  words  more 
to  the  Convention.  Let  us  take  a  lesson  from  the  his- 
tory of  the  past.  If  you  do  not  hear  that  warning 
voice,  then  I  say  that  you  are  deaf  to  all  the  wisdom  of 
the  past.  Forms  of  prayer  and  thanksgiving  which  are 
put  forth  for  the  worship  of  Almighty  Uod  should  be 
such  as  wo  can  use  from  the  heart  or  they  become  a 
burden  to  the  conscience  ;  they  also  tend  to  destroy 
peace  and  harmony  in  our  congregations,  as  all  such 
prayers  of  an  improper  character  must  do.  I  appeal  to 
you  all  whether  during  the  last  six  years  there  have  not 
been  forms  of  prayer  put  forth  in  various  parts  of  the 
Church  which  have  been  like  a  thunderbolt  and  a  fire- 
brand— whether  they  have  not  been  the  cause  of  driv- 
ing clergy  away  from  their  congregations  and  producing 
dissension  and  trouble  in  the  congregations,  so  that  in 
many  cases  men  would  not  come  to  church  because  they 
would  not  offer  the  forms  of  prayer  jiut  forth  by  the 
Bishops  of  the  Church.  What  scandal  is  this !  Will 
you  suffer  it  any  longer  ?  Have  you  not  known  the 
trouble  which  has  occurred  all  over  the  Church  ?     We 


do  not  anticipate  such  troubles  again.  God  forbid  they 
should  occur.  But  you  do  not  know  what  occasions 
may  arise  by  which  Bishops  will  put  forth  prayers  you 
cannot  use,  burdens  to  the  conscience,  destructive  of  the 
congregations,  and  causing  the  clergy  to  separate  from 
them  because  they  cannot  comply  with  the  unreasonable 
demands  of  the  Bishops.  Do  as  you  please.  I  plead 
for  your  own  interests.  If  you  do  not  change  this  canon 
I  think  you  richly  deserve  all  the  sufferings  which  have 
occurred ;  and  the  day  will  come  when  you  will  be  sorr\ 
that  you  have  not  listened  to  the  warning  voice. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight  : — I  hope  the  House  will  under- 
stand this  question.  The  law  of  which  the  reverend 
gentleman  complains  with  such  elotjuent  and  vehement 
language  has  been  tbe  law  of  the  Church  for  thirty-six 
years.  We  don't  propose  to  make  a  new  law.  The 
reverend  gentleman  introduced  a  proposition  to  chancre 
it,  and,  instead  of  making  it  obligatory  to  use  the  prayers, 
to  say  you  may  or  you  may  not.  The  Committee  on  Can- 
ons have  had  the  matter  under  consideration  and  are 
not  prepared  to  report  a  change.  If  the  House  recog- 
nizes the  right  of  the  Bishops  to  set  forth  forms  of 
prayer  and  thanksgiving  for  extraordinary  occasions, 
they  should  certainly  protect  them  in  the  discharge  of 
their  duty,  and  not  leave  them  to  the  mercy  of  presby- 
ters— whether  they  will  or  will  not  use  them.  There  is 
one  way  in  which  this  difficulty  may  be  obviated.  My 
reverend  brother  has  refei-red  to  three  Bishops  of  New 
Jersey,  all  of  whom  have  left  it  optional  to  the  clergy. 
That  is  the  case  in  this  diocese.  The  Bishop  has  set 
forth  forms  of  prayer  to  be  used  by  tlie  clergy  at  their 
discretion  as  to  the  number  of  times  and  whether  they 
will  or  will  not  use  them  at  all.  If  all  our  Bishops 
had  done  the  same  thing,  the  whole  difficulty  would 
have  been  removed.  But  to  say  in  one  breath  that 
your  Bishop  shall  have  power  to  iisue  forms  of  prayer 
for  extraordinary  occasions  and  with  the  same  breath  to 
say  that  the  clergy  may  not  use  them,  is  stultifying  our- 
selves. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Stubbs  moved  that  the  amendment  be 
adopted. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Hake  read  the  canon  as  it  now  stands. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin  moved  that  the  motion  to 
adopt  the  amendment  be  laid  on  the  table ;  which  mo- 
tion was  adopted.  The  Committee  on  Canons  then  sub- 
mitted Report  No.  14,  to  the  effect  that  they  had  under 
consideration  several  amendments  to  canon  twelve,  title 
one,  concerning  clerical  intrusion,  and  that  they  are 
not  able  to  report  any  of  the  amendments  referred  to 
them  as  likely  to  remove  the  difficulties  in  the  interpre- 
tation of  the  canon,  and  they  ask  to  be  discharged  from 
further  consideration  of  the  subject. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Haight  said :  There  was  a  number 
of  amendments  introduced  with  reference  to  this  canon 
which,  after  being  discussed,  were  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Canons  for  consideration.  We  had  a  meeting 
and  discussed  them  Tery  thoroughly  ;  and  the  result  of 


84 


the  deliberation  was  this,  that,  notwithstanding  the  evi- 
dent desire  that  something  should  be  done,  yet  no  one  of 
the  amendments  would  effect  the  proposed  object,  and 
therefore  the  committee  had  nothing  to  offer. 

Judge  Comstock  moved  that  the  committee  be 
discharged  so  as  to  leave  tlie  subject  before  the  House. 

Judge  Sheffy  presented  his  views  as  to  the  par- 
liamentary order  of  dispo.iing  of  the  report  of  the  com- 
mittee. He  would  say  with  proper  deference  to  the  opin- 
ion of  the  chair,  that  the  object  of  referring  to  the 
•committee  was  that  the  committee  should  digest  for  the 
House  the  resolutions  referred  to  it,  that  the  committee 
should  dispose  of  them  finally;  and  the  report  that  the 
committee  made  was  a  final  disposition  of  the  business, 
unless  the  committee  reported  the  resolutions  back  for  ac- 
tion in  some  form.  He  thereupon  moved  that  the  com- 
mittee be  discharged  from  the  further  consideration  of 
the  subject. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin  : — This  motion  to  discharge 
the  committee,  is,  I  believe,  a  debatable  question,  and  I 
desire  to  say  something  upon  the  subject-matter.  I  would 
ask  first,  that  the  Secretary  should  inform  us  in  regard 
to  the  memorials  on  this  subject  as  to  their  number  and 
the  number  of  the  memorialists.  I  would  like  that  the 
House  should  be  informed  with  regard  to  the  number 
and  character  of  the  memorials,  at  least  the  number. 
The  secretary  produced  several  yards  of  signatures,  re- 
marking that  these  were  only  small  portions  of  the  me- 
morials. 

The  President  : — I  think  the  gentleman  may  safely 
assume  that  the  memorials  have  been  very  numerously 
signed. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin,  resuming : — I  had  pro- 
posed, and  I  suppose  it  is  in  order  now  to  make  a  mo- 
tion which  I  shall  make  at  the  close  of  what  I  have  to 
say.  I  am  ready  to  say  then  out  of  my  ten  minutes,  that 
1  entirely,  for  myself,  approve  of  the  canon  to  protect 
ministers  in  their  parishes  and  congregations,  and  think 
they  ought  to  be  protected. 

I  think  they  have  rights  which  ought  to  be  protected. 
I  entirely  assent  to  that  ;  but  I  think  they  ought  not  to 
have  arbitrary  protection,  the  protection  of  arbitrary  ac- 
tion on  our  part;  where  there  should  be  reasonable  protec- 
lion.  As  the  canon  now  stands,  there  must  be  express  per- 
mission. No  man  is  allowed  to  preach,  read  prayers,  or 
otherwise  ofBciate,  within  the  limits  prescribed,  without 
e.\press  permission,  and  in  the  case  of  a  city,  the  express 
permission  of  a  majority  of  the  clergymen  in  the  city.  I 
have  already  called  the  attention  of  the  Convention  to 
some  of  the  cases  of  hardship  arising  under  this.  I  believe 
that  Bishop  White,  of  Pennsylvania,  was  for  many 
years  the  President  of  the  American  Bible  Society.  I 
will  suppose  that  the  American  Bible  Society  should 
have  held  its  annual  meeting  in  New  York  city,  and 
suppose  Bishop  White  were  the  one  assigned  to  preach 
the  sermon.  Under  this  canon  he  could  not  preach 
that  sermon  even  by  the  permission  of  the  Bishop  of 
New  York,  but  must  have  express  permission  of  the  ma- 


jority of  all  the  clergy  in  New  York.  The  pronouncing 
of  the  Benediction  is  an  official  act ;  so  if  he  should  pro- 
nounce the  Benediction  at  a  meeting  of  that  Society,  he 
must  obtain  the  express  permission  of  the  majority  of 
the  clergy  in  New  York.  Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  we 
might  make  canons  that  would  not  involve  such  absurd 
applications.  If  it  be  said  that  of  course  it  would  not  be 
applied  in  such  a  case,  I  say  I  think  so,  but  then  every 
man  must  determine  in  his  own  mind  as  to  what  it  would 
not  "  of  course  "be  applied.  As  to  the  matter  of  intent, 
I  agree— and  I  believe  all  men,  including  the  lawyers 
among  us  agree — that  the  intent  must  be  taken  into 
question ;  but  the  intent  to  do  what  ?  Some  say  it  is 
the  intent  to  violate  this  canon — the  intent  to  preach 
without  the  express  consent,  and  with  the  intent  of  inter- 
ference. But  what  do  we  mean  by  intent  of  interfer- 
ence ?  If  the  intent  is  to  be  taken  into  the  question  it 
should  be  taken  in  the  manner  in  which  it  is  proposed 
— the  intent  to  do  some  wrong.  But  if  nobody  is  injur- 
ed, and  there  is  no  intent  to  injure  anybody,  why  should 
we  make  a  crime  out  of  it '?  Why  should  we  give  a  minis- 
ter not  the  power  to  protect  himself  in  his  rights  but 
the  power,  on  account  of  any  peculiar  opinion  of  his  or 
personal  pique,  to  fall  upon  any  minister,  who  may 
chance  to  officiate  in  his  parish  ?  As  to  the  canons,  we 
say  nobody  shall  do  so  and  so,  and  then  we  are  to  inter- 
pret them  so  that  somebody  may  do  so  and  so.  I  do 
not  see  the  necessity  of  keeping  our  canons  in  such  a 
condition  as  that.  The  vagueness  of  the  canon,  it  seema 
to  me,  is  the  great  objection.  I  want  a  canon  which  will 
protect  the  clergy  in  their  rights,  but  I  do  desire  that 
the  vagueness  of  the  canon  should  be  mended.  I  will 
say  no  more  than  to  make  my  motion  which  the  secreta- 
ry can  read,  and  then  I  expect  it  will  be  laid  upon  the 
table,  but  I  want  to  do  my  duty.  I  have  my  own  dis- 
tinct, clear  views  in  regard  to  this,  and  have  a  duty  to 
perform,  and  when  I  perform  my  duty  to  the  Church,  I 
am  satisfied.  I  yield  with  the  most  perfect  cheerfulness 
to  the  decision  of  the  Convention  on  the  subject,  and  I 
can  anticipate  what  it  will  be.  I  move  that  the  report 
be  amended  by  inserting  the  following  resolution  : 

Resolved,  That  clause  1,  of  section  6,  of  Canon  12,  ofTitle 
1,  is  hereljy  an.ouded,  so  as  to  read  : 

No  minister  belonging  to  this  Church  shall  officiate  pub- 
licly eithoi-  by  preaching,  reading  prayers  or  otherwise,  in 
tlie  parish  or  within  the  parochial  cure  of  auotlier  clergy- 
man witli  tlic  iuiculiou  of  establishing  witliout  canonical 
authority,  a  now  |)arish  or  congregation  therein,  or  other- 
wise disturbing  the  canonical  parochial  relations  of  said 
clergyman,  and  against  the  prohibition  so  to  otfioiate,  from 
tlie  minister  of  the  parish  or  cure,  or  in  his  absence,  from 
the  Church  Wardens,  or  a  majority  of  them. 

Resolved,  further.  That  at  tlie  end  of  the  fourth  paragraph 
of  clause  "2,  section  G,  of  Title  I,  instead  of  the  words — "  and 
the  assent  of  a  majority  of  such  ministers  shall  be  necessary," 
shall  be  inserted  the  following,  "and  the  prohibition  afore- 
said must  be  from  a  majority  of  such  ministers." 

Rev.  Dr.  Norton,  of  Virginia: — I  listened  with  great 
interest  to  the  proposition  of  the  Rev.  gentleman  from 
Pennsylvania ;  and  1  had  already  written  something 
with   the  same  object  in    view,  which  may  meet  the 


85 


views  of  that  gentleman ;  otherwise  I  should  feel  inclin- 
ed, instead  of  olfering  my  own  as  a  substitute,  to  accept 
his.  We  have  the  same  object  in  view,  which  is  to  rec- 
ognize by  a  canon,  that  which  almost  every  cleigyman 
in  this  Church  does — to  bring  the  letter  of  the  canon  into 
conformity  with  the  general  conduct  of  our  clergy,  con- 
duet  which  they  are  obliged  to  pursue  in  the  discharge 
of  their  duty  as  clergymen  of  the  Church.  It  is  difficult 
to  find  any  general  form  of  expression  which  will  include 
those  duties  which  we  wish  to  recognize  as  a  canonical 
right  of  the  pastor  to  discharge  to  his  parishioners,  even 
though  sojourning,  it  may  be,  or  residing  permanently 
within  the  parochial  limits  of  another  clergyman,  and 
will  also  exclude  those  public  duties  which  it  would  not 
be  safe  to  confer  upon  him.  The  form  in  which  I  thought 
of  presenting  the  matter  ia  (reading  the  resolution).  I 
am  aware  that  this  expression  may  not  be  precisely  the 
best  one  ;  and  the  committee  will  hit  upon  some  one 
which  will  better  express  the  idea  desired  to  be  convey- 
ed. But  this  is  what  is  desired,  and  this,  let  me  say, 
will  defend  this  canon,  in  one  of  its  most  vulnerable 
points,  from  those  who  seek  to  bring  it  into  discredit.  I 
think  it  a  valuable  and  indispensable  rule  of  our  Church, 
that  hmits  shouhl  be  assigned  to  our  churches,  that  these 
limits  should  be  so  clear  that  there  can  be  no  mistake 
about  them,  that  all  our  clergy  will  know  where  to  find 
them.  I  would  ask  tlie  reverend  gentleman  from  Penn- 
sylvania whether  the  amendment  presenting  the  subject 
suggested  in  this  resolution  would  not  be  substantially 
his  own  views  in  the  case. 

Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin  ; — I  cannot  accept  it,  for  I  think 
we  have  spent  time  enough  on  it.  Although  I  am 
earnestly  desirous  of  having  something  done,  we  must 
stop  somewhere. 

Rev.  Dr.  Norton  : — Then  I  withdraw  my  re.solution 
and  will  support  that  of  the'  gentleman  from  Pennsyl- 
vania. 

Rev.  Dr.  Ad.ims  : — Mr.  President,  I  think  I  can  sug- 
gest to  the  members  of  this  Convention  a  consideration 
which  I  think  will  bring  us  to  a  resolution  I  will  offer. 
I  would  ask,  is  it  not  a  fact  that  this  canon  has  been  for 
years  on  our  book  of  legislation  ?  The  answer  is,  un- 
questionabl}'  it  has.  Has  any  objection  been  had  to  it  ? 
No  objection  hitherto.  That  canon  comes  in  upon  a 
trial.  A  gentleman  in  this  city  is  tried  upon  that  canon, 
he  is  brought  in  guilty,  and  the  court  acting  upon  the 
canon  pronounces  a  sentence  and  that  sentence  is  car- 
ried out.  I  would  ask  the  gentlemen  who  are  lawyers 
here,  what  does  that  amount  to  V  It  amounts  simply  to  a 
judicial  interpi-etation  of  the  law,  given  by  men  whose 
ability,  whose  honesty,  whose  innocence,  whose  skill  in 
the  law  we  cannot  doubt.  There  is  no  person  here  who 
must  not  say  that  that  is  true.  Now,  sir,  let  us  accept  the 
thing  in  its  shape.  Some  of  us  are  uniiojiular,  perliaps 
a  majority  of  the  clergymen  of  the  Church  are  unpopu- 
lar; they  are  apt  to  hold  to  the  principles  of,  and  to 
believe  in,  the  Holy  Catholic  Church,  and  the  cry  is 
raised   "  These    bitter,   narrow-minded,   'High-Church- 


men ;'  th^  have  got  a  canon,  and  they  put  a  man 
down  for  preaching  the(iOspel;  and  that  ought  to  be 
brought  to  an  end."  AVhat  is  the  operation  of  it  ?  As 
everybody  knows,  we  have  shnple  legislative  duties;  we 
are  not  a  court  of  appeals;  but  it  is  determined  to  make 
us  a  court  of  appeals  by  a  side-wind,  when  everything 
is  hot  and  excited,  when  faction  has  reared  its  hydra 
head  and  is  hissiug  through  this  city  and  through  all 
the  detestable  papers.  I  have  seen  Church  papers  which 
as  a  churchman  I  should  be  inclined  to  treat  as  an  old 
clergyman  of  this  city  did  his  Church  paper  to  which  he 
subscribed  in  order  that  every  Saturday  he  could  put  it 
into  the  fire  with  the  tongs  [laughter].  They  try  to 
make  us  a  Court  of  Appeals,  and  to  have  this  Conven- 
tion stultify  itself  so  far  as  completely  to  annul  that 
trial,  and  to  declare  that  the  interpretation  of  the  court 
was  wrong.  I  submit  to  this  Convention  that  it  is  an 
indecorous  procedure — and  that  it  never  ought  to  be 
brought  up  here.  I  submit  that  all  these  plausible  rea- 
sons, do  not  mean  anything  against  the  canon.  It 
means  that  men  shall  come  up  here  and  appeal  to  inno- 
cent clergymen  ;  that  they  should  bring  in  plausibilities 
in  consequence  of  which  the  innocent  clergymen  and 
laity  should  go  in  and  destroy  the  judicial  decision,  and 
annul  the  canon,  and  acquit  the  man  who  has  been  tried 
and  condemned  under  the  canon,  and  who  has  been 
solenmly  sentenced  by  the  Church.  That  is  what  the 
thing  means.  I  submit  it  is  indecorous  in  the  highest 
degree.  It  is  unfit:  in  every  respect  to  come  before  this 
Church  (and  I  trust  that  there  is  no  clergyman  nor  lay- 
man of  the  Church  ihat  will  not  recognize  that  that  is 
the  amount  of  the  whole  thing)  to  nullify  the  law,  to 
pronounce  the  bishop  who  declared  the  sentence,  the 
court  that  tried  him,  and  all  the  rest,  fools.  T  suggest 
it  is  highl}'  indecorous ;  and,  .it  the  same  time  I  admit 
that  the  gentlemen  who  brought  it  up  have  covered  up 
their  designs  with  plausibilities. 

The  President: — Dr.  Adams,  I  do  not  think  it  is 
right  in  you  to  indulge  that  strain  of  remarks  reflecting 
upon  other  gentlemen. 

Rev.  Dr.  Adams  : — I  beg  leave  to  withdraw  it,  at  the 
same  time  it  is  the  effect  of  the  thing.  (Laughter.)  If 
they  do  intend  to  nullify  the  canon  and  acquit  the  gen- 
tleman and  pronounce  the  trial  null  and  void  and  re- 
verse the  whole  action  of  the  court,  I  believe  every  cler- 
gyman and  layman  of  the  Church  will  agree  with  me 
that  it  is  unsuitable — that  this  operation  should  proceed 
no  further;  and  in  order  to  bring  the  thing  to  an  end 
(and  here  I  apologize  if  I  have  imputed  any  evil  inten- 
tion) in  order  to  bring  to  an  end  the  thing  which  would 
result  as  I  have  stated  (no  man  can  deny  it)  1  move  that 
it  be  laid  upon  the  table. 

Rev.  Dr.  Rylance,  of  Illinois  : — 1  hope  the  gentleman 
will  withdraw  his  motion  to  lay  upon  the  table ;  it  is  too 
serious  a  matter  thus  to  be  disposed  of. 

Rev.  Dr.    Haight: — ^You   cannot   suppose   that  this 
House  is  going  in  this  way  to  apply  the  gag-law. 
Rev.  Dr.  Adams  : — I  withdraw  it. 


86 


Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin  : — From  what  I  have  learned 
from  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Canons,  I  am 
disposed  to  accept  the  proposition  of  my  friend  from 
Virginia  [Rev.  Dr.  Norton]  and  to  agree  to  substitute  it 
for  my  proposition.  I  understand  that  the  committee 
are  ready  to  reconsider. 

The  Secretary  then  read  the  proposition  of  Dr.  Nor- 
ton: 

Resolved,  That  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Canons 
be  recommitted,  with  instructions  to  report  the  following 
amendment : 

Resolved,  That  Canon  12,  Title  1st,  Paragraph  6,  Clause 
1st,  be  amended  so  as  to  read :  "  nothing  in  this  canon 
shall  be  understood  to  forbid  a  minister  of  this  Church  from 
discharging  his  duties  as  such  in  respect  of  members  of  his 
own  parish  who  may  be  within  the  parochial  limits  ot  an- 
other minister,  except  the  duty  of  preaching,  and  reading 
prayers  in  a  public  congregation,"  or  some  other  amend- 
ment of  the  canon  of  UUe  purport. 

Rev.  Dr.  Rylance,  of  Illinois: — I  wish  to   observe, 
and  I  trust   it  is   quite  clear  to  the  intelligence  of  this 
House,  that  the  proposed  action  on  the  part  of  the  me- 
morialists, and  on  the  part  of  the  resolution  now  before 
us,  by  no  means  involves  the  implication  suggested  by 
the  reverend  and  learned  Deputy  from  Wisconsin.     On 
the  other  hand,  I  contend   that  the  presentation  of  the 
memorials  in  this  House,  calling  for  modifications  and 
changes  of  that  canon  (and  here  I  bold  that  these  me- 
morials are  modest,  Christian,  and  gentlemanly  in  their 
expression,  and  the  change  which  they  seem  to  suggest 
is  also  moderate) — I  say  the  very  fact  of  the  presenta- 
tion of  such  memorials  seems  to  confirm  the  interpreta- 
tion hitherto  put  upon  the  canon  and  sanctioned  by  the 
action  of  the  court  referred  to.     The  very  fact  that  they 
ask  for  a  change  seems  to  acknowledge  that  a  right  in- 
terpretation was  put  upon  it  at  the  time  referred  to  ;  so 
that  there  is  not  even  the  possibility  of  thus  reflecting 
upon  brethren  who  have  brought  these  memorials  be- 
fore us.     It  is  one  of  the  unhappiest  accidents  of  this 
whole  matter,  that  these  memorials  come  before  us  bur- 
dened and  crippled  with  this  understanding.     I  believe 
there  is  a  large  party  of  sensible  clergymen  prepared  to 
undo,  somewhat,  the  cast-iron  rigor  of  this  canon.     As 
it  stands,  I  know   it  is  acknowledged,  on  every   hand, 
that  it  admits  of  factious  and  foolish  application.     Hith- 
erto the  tendency  has  been  to  look   at  this  canon  from 
one  side  only,  as  to   the  danger   and   mischief  of  ap- 
proaching, contrary  to   law,  the  territorial  limits  of  a 
brother  clergyman.     But   consider  this   on  the   other 
side ;  and,  in   shaping   laws,  it  ought  *to   be  borne  in 
mind,  very  carefully,  that   whilst   you  protect  against 
intrusion,  you  are  not  to  put  tyrannical  power  into  the 
hands  of  any   foolish  member,  who   shall  be  ready  to 
use   it.     Here  let   me  guard   the   Convention   against 
drawing  the  conclusion  that  I  have  the  slightest  refer- 
ence, in  my  own  mind,  to  recent  facts  in  the  history  of 
the  Church.     I  wish  to  be  understood,  most  distinctly, 
that  I  do  not  pronounce  any  opinion  upon  the  prudence 
or  imprudence  of  the  brethren  who  thought  fit  to  bring 


up  this  canon  for  judicial  interpretation  ;  nor  do  I  pro- 
nounce any  opinion  upon  the  wisdom  or  unwisdom  of 
the  brother  who  seemed  to  be  guilty  of  a  breach  of  it. 
I  say  it  is  the  unhappiest  thing  of  this  whole  matter 
that  these  reasonable  memorials  come  burdened  with 
such  antecedents  as  these.  I  believe  that  if  we  were 
without  them,  these  memorials  would  induce  the  con- 
vention to  modify  the  canon.  We  are  breaking  it  con- 
tinually ;  and  the  power  lies  in  the  hands  of  many  a 
brother  to  throw  this  Church  into  disorder,  and  to 
bring  distress  upon  Christian  feeling,  by  the  foolish  ap- 
plication of  the  power — the  unwise  application  of  the 
power,  shall  I  say — which  the  Church  has  injudiciously 
put  into  individual  hands.  I  have  no  modification  to 
suggest,  but  I  am  hopeful  that  out  of  the  collected  rep- 
resentative wisdom  of  the  Church,  as  here  gathered, 
and  especially  from  the  very  able  Committee  on  Can- 
ons, there  may  be  really  something  brought  before  us 
that  may  be  enacted  by  this  House,  which,  on  the  one 
hand,shall  admit  of  a  clergyman  doing  reasonable,  sensi- 
ble, and  necessary  things,  as  going  to  his  parishioners, 
and  ministering  to  the  individual  necessities  of  those 
who  cling  to  him  and  love  him,  though  it  may  be  with- 
in the  topographical  limits  of  a  brother  in  another  par- 
ish. The  larger  part  of  the  clergymen  do  this  thing, 
without  any  evil  coming  from  it.  If  we  are  brethren, 
cultivated  gentlemen,  there  is  no  danger  of  our  being 
injured  by  this  thing.  There  is  not  a  man  worthy  of 
a  place  on  the  list  of  our  clergy  who  would  go  and  take 
advantage  of  these  liberties,  if  you  allow  them,  if  you 
freely  sanction  them — I  say  there  is  not  a  man  with  a 
heart  in  him  that  would  take  advantage  of  them. 
Therefore,  my  brethren,  I  do  trust  the  members  of  this 
House  will  be  prepared  to  relax  this  canon ;  that  we 
may  have  more  liberty,  that  we  may  not  be  afraid  that 
some  brother  will  bring  canonical  penalty  to  bear  upon 
us ;  that  we  may  have  a  reasonable  liberty ;  that  we 
may  minister  to  members  of  our  parish,  as  I  allow  my 
brethren  in  Chicago,  and  as  they  do  continually. 

Rev.  Mr.  Gadsden,  of  South  Carolina: — It  is  with 
great  modesty  that  I  arise  to  address  this  Convention. 
There  is  a  point  which,  it  appears  to  me,  has  not  been 
noticed.  The  canon  is  ambiguous.  I  have  known  in- 
stances in  which  it  has  been  violated,  without  any  in- 
tention of  intruding  upon  brethren.  It  is  a  matter  of 
serious  doubt  upon  the  part  of  clergymen,  what  is  their 
duty  under  it.  My  attention  was  first  called  to  it  some 
years  since ;  when  I  was  in  London,  at  the  time  of  the 
services  which  were  being  performed  in  Exeter  Hall 
by  ministers  of  the  Established  Church,  not  the  regular 
congregation  of  the  parish  in  which  Exeter  Hall  is  situ- 
ated, but  composed  largely  of  tliose  not  parochially  con- 
nected with  any  church  in  the  vicinity.  A  prohibition 
was  made  in  regard  to  those  services,  issued  by  the  rec- 
tor of  the  parish  in  which  that  hall  was  situated,  just 
before  the  services  commenced.  The  ministers  of  the 
Established  Church   used  extempore  services.     I    re- 


87 


member  one  of  the  working  men  sitting  near  me  said : 
"  Why  is  it  that  the  services  of  the  Church  have  been 
set  aside  ?"  I  found  that  a  legal  opinion  had  been  given 
that  if  they  would  ofiiciate  and  preach,  but  not  use  the 
Liturg_v,  they  could  not  be  interfered  with,  and  they 
might  go  on  with  the  services ;  and  they  were  so  con- 
tinued. Since  then  I  have  had  it  in  mind.  I  have  seen 
various  instances  in  which  the  canon  stood  in  the  way 
of  the  missionary  work  in  the  Church.  Not  many 
Sundays  ago,  after  having  completed  all  the  services  of 
ray  parish — the  morning  and  afternoon  service,  and  the 
Communion — I  had  returned  to  my  house,  when  I  re- 
ceived a  uote,  written  by  the  managers  of  a  non-Episco- 
pal Church,  stating  that  the  congregation  were  about  to 
assemble,  and  the  minister  had  not  arrived  ;  and  they 
asked  me  that,  as  a  minister  of  Jesus  Christ,  I  would 
come  and  preach  the  Gospel.  There  was  no  time  to 
see  my  brother  (though  I  believe  I  should  have  readily 
received  his  assent ;)  I  was  obliged  to  refuse  the  oppor- 
tunity of  preaching  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  or  else  violate 
this  canon,  as  interpreted  by  some,  though  I  do  not 
think  it  would  be  a  violation.  There  is  an  ambiguity 
in  the  canon,  and  therefore  I  propose  to  refer  the  fol- 
lowing words  to  be  added,  that  "  the  terms  defining 
parochial  limits  apply  only  to  members  of  this  Church." 
I  would  be  the  last  man  that  desired  to  intrude  upon 
the  parish  of  a  brother.  To  intrude  in  any  way,  by 
preaching,  reading  prayers,  or  administering  the  sacra- 
ments among  those  connected  with  our  Church,  it 
seems  to  me,  would  be  a  violation  of  the  canon  ;  but,  to 
address  a  number  of  people,  no  matter  how  organized, 
so  that  they  have  no  Church-relations  with  this  Church, 
I  do  not  think  is  a  violation  of  the  canon  as  it  now 
stands  ;  but  as  there  is  ambiguitj',  I  would  be  happy  to 
have  it  removed,  so  that  while  we  sacredly  observe  the 
rights  of  our  fellow  presbyters,  we  may  be  at  liberty  to 
preach  the  Gospel  to  others,  though  territorially  within 
the  limits  of  a  brother's  parish.  Let  us  have  opportu- 
nity to  minister  to  them  outside  of  our  immediate 
church-limits,  without  violating  the  law  of  Christian 
love,  or  coming  in  conflict  with  any  of  the  canons ;  and 
I  have  so  much  of  faith  in  the  evangelical  purity  and 
scriptural  character  of  our  Liturgy,  that  I  believe  we 
shall  be  doing  greater  good  than  if  we  are  bound  by 
this  canon.  I  trust  this  matter  will  be  referred  to  the 
Committee. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight: — In  regard  to  the  motion  before 
the  House  (to  recommit)  I  desire  to  say  the  Conuiiittee 
on  Canons  are  perfectly  willing  to  have  the  matter 
come  back  to  us.  There  is  one  great  difficulty  in  this 
matter.  What  is  the  canon  ?  What  is  its  purport  ? 
Is  it  anything  more  than,  to  put  in  legal  language,  the 
old  maxim,  "  Let  every  man  mind  his  own  busines.s" — 
the  instruction  given  in  the  catechism  to  every  child, 
that  "he  should  do  his  duty  in  that  state  of  life  unto 
which  it  shall  please  God  to  call  him" — the  language 
in  the  canon  to  each  Bishop,  that  "each  Bishop  shall 


confine  himself  to  his  own  diocese  "  ?  When  you  come 
to  put  it  in  a  legal  form,  and  apply  it,  I  do  not  believe 
it  is  possible  to  frame  a  canon,  with  rectors  on  one 
hand  whose  minds  are  bent  supremely  upon  the  idea 
of  rectorial  prerogatives,  and  brethren  on  the  other 
hand  who  are  impressed  with  the  idea  that  they  have 
a  commission  to  preach  the  Gospel  anywhere  and  every- 
where, which  one  or  the  other  class  of  minds  will  not 
find  the  means  of  setting  aside.  That  is  one  great  rea- 
son why  the  Committee  on  Canons  have  found  them- 
selves unable  to  bring  anything  before  this  House  defi- 
nitely ;  but  we  are  perfectly  willing  to  take  the  sugges- 
tion of  the  brother  from  Virginia,  and  endeavor  to  bring 
in  something  to-morrow  morning. 

Judge  CoNYNGHAM : — I  do  not  intend  to  detain  this 
House  by  observations  with  reference  to  this  matter. 
This  canon  was  passed  in  1859  ;  it  was  then  submitted 
to  a  committee,  and  there  was  a  report  of  a  minor- 
ity of  the  committee  at  that  time  brought  before  the 
House,  which  I  merely  ask  to  read.  This  report  was 
signed  by  William  Bacon  Stevens,  now  Bishop  of 
Pennsylvania ;  James  Craik,  now  the  honored  presi- 
dent of  this  body  ;  and  Philip  Williams,  now  gone  to 
his  reward.  I  only  say  that  the  remarks  made  Vjy  the 
minority  of  the  committee  present  themselves  now  fairly 
to  the  consideration  of  the  House.  If  we  are  still  to  re- 
tain that  canon — and  I  am  in  favor  of  such  canon,  either 
of  the  General  or  Diocesan  Convention,  something  to 
protect  the  rights  of  the  clergy — let  us  cure  it  of  diffi- 
culty, if  we  can. 

Rev.  Dr.  Andrews,  of  Virginia : — Though  there  may 
be  little  prospect  of  getting  any  change  from  the  Com- 
mittee on  Canons,  yet,  if  no  other  advantage  takes  place, 
this  discussion  has  been  exceedingly  instructive  and  pro- 
fitable ;  and  although  it  refers  to  the  most  exciting  facts 
that  have  taken  place  in  the  Chuich  in  my  day,  there 
has  not  a  single  word  been  spoken  that  should  give  pain 
to  any  brother  in  the  council  or  out  of  it  That  is  a 
great  benefit  gained  so  fiir  absolutely.  Let  me  say,  in 
a  word,  that  it  is  conceded  on  all  hands  that  this  canon 
can  not  be  carried  out  in  large  cities.  There  are  many 
places  in  the  country  where  it  is  equally  impracticable. 

What  we  are  to  act  upon  now  is  as  lo  the  wisdom  of 
retaining  this  canon  in  its  present  form.  I  will  make 
one  single  suggestion  to  the  Committee  on  Canons.  1 
have  never  been  a  member  of  that  committee,  though  I 
have  been  called  upon  times  innumerable  in  the  last 
20  years  to  vote  upon  their  deliberations.  My  suggestion 
is  with  reference  to  the  times  in  which  we  live.  There 
are  certain  restrictive  rules  which  no  Church  has  a  right 
under  its  charter  to  pass,  regarding  Catholic  union. 

This  is  an  aspect  of  the  case  very  little  considered. 
The  Church  has  no  right  to  pass  such  canons.  It  is 
easy  for  us  to  pass  such  rules  restricting  the  liberty 
wherewith  Christ  has  made  us  free,  and  tlien  turn  round 
and  say  if  you  can  not  observe  the  rules  of  the  Church 
you  had  better  leave  it.    Is  the  Church  a  human  institu- 


88 


tion  which  a  man  can  leave  or  not  as  he  pleases  ?  Sup- 
pose they  should  leave  it  where  would  they  be  ?  Some 
would  be  in  the  bosom  of  idolatry ;  some  would  be  in  the 
worst  possible  condition-»-impaled  on  one  of  the  five 
points  of  Calvinism ;  or  they  might  be  left  out  in  the 
cold  unfriendly  world.  No,  Sir,  no  man  can  leave  the 
Church.  From  the  Church  he  must  be  driven  only  by 
a  judicial  sentence ;  and  it  is  an  awful  condition  for  a 
man  to  be  in.  When  that  blessed  day  shall  come  when 
these  Catholic  unions  shall  begin  to  appear,  let  us  beware 
lest  we  be  found  in  the  possession  of  these  restrictive 
laws  upon  which  all  the  intolerance  in  the  Church  shall 
lay  hold  to  prevent  the  realization  of  that  unity  of  the 
Church  for  which  all  so  devoutly  pray 

Rev.  Di .  Peterkin,  of  Virginia : — I  am  impelled  to 
make  some  remarks  upoathis  subject  before  it  shall  be 
finally  disposed  of,  and  that  because  I  have  not  yet  al- 
together given  up  the  suggestion  which  I  had  the  liberty 
of  making  yesterday  before  the  amendments  were  pre- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  Canons.  As  one  of  my 
colleagues  predicted,  amendments  and  resolutions 
do  come  flocking  like  doves  to  the  windows,  but  they  are 
doves,  I  think  ;  they  bear  the  olive  branch  ;  and  I  think 
the  waters  are  beginning  to  assuage ;  and  I  therefore 
think  that  we  may  welcome  these  emendations  and  reso- 
lutions proposed,  even  though  they  do  occupy  some  of 
our  valuable  time.  If  1  thought  with  one  of  the  gentle- 
men who  spoke  that  our  minds  were  all  fully  made  up, 
on  this  subject,  I  should  not  venture  to  occupy  your 
time  for  one  moment  longer.  But  this,  I  take  it,  is  an 
occasion  of  friendly  fraternal  conference.  It  is  true  in 
speaking  in  a  large  building,  and  to  a  large  audience, 
there  is  necessarily  an  elevation  of  the  voice,  and  there- 
fore there  is  sometimes  a  prolongation  of  discourse  so 
that  what  ought  to  be  a  few  remarks  may  come  to  take 
somewhat  the  shape  of  a  regular  speech  ;  but  this  I  do 
not  design ;  I  shall  try  to  keep  within  the  time  allotted 
tome,  yet  I  must  take  some  of  that  time  to  protest 
against  the  peculiar  advantages  possessed  by  my  reverend 
brother  from  Wisconsin,  for,  his  argumentative  vigor, 
his  powers  of  jocularity,  and  his  facility  for  locomotion 
have  given  him  an  advantage  over  every  member  who 
sits  in  this  quarter  of  the  House.  [Laughter.]  Then  1 
would  suggest  in  relation  to  the  allusion  made  by  my 
brother  that  when  we  look  at  any  given  subject  it  de- 
pends very  much  upon  our  capability  of  looking  just  in 
that  particular  time.  I  remember  to  have  read  of  an 
officer  stopping  at  some  country  inn  who  was  obliged  to 
be  off  at  the  peep  of  day,  and  had  his  orderly  sleeping 
in  the  room  to  be  sure  of  his  being  aroused  at  the  right 
time.  The  windows  had  been  closed,  and  the  officer 
having  awakened  did  not  know  whether  it  was  light  or 
not.  He  called  and  said  to  his  orderly,  "  Is  it  light  T 
And  the  orderly  fumbled  about  the  room  until  he  got  to 
a  window,  as  he  supposed,  but  unfortunately  went  to 
the  cupboard  and  opened  it.  The  officer  said  again 
"  Is  it  light  ?"     The   orderly  replied,  "  No   sir,  it  is  as 


black  as  Satan  and  smells  of  old  cheese.  [Laughter.] 
Now,  sir,  I  am  looking  out  into  the  broad  day  light ;  I 
see  light ;  I  am  not  looking  into  this  cupboard ;  not  only 
are  the  waters  assuaging  but  the  light  is  dawning  upon 
us.  As  this  canon  stands,  if  it  were  strictly  interpreted, 
it  does  work  all  those  restrictions  which  have  been  re- 
ferred to.  It  would  oblige  any  clergyman  coming  to 
officiate,  say  iu  New  York,  Philadelphia,  or  any  other 
city,  to  collect  all  the  rectors  and  obtain  from  them  their 
assent.  Therein  this  particular  canon  is,  I  presume,  vio- 
lated every  day,  without  rebuke,  that  is,  if  it  were  strict- 
ly interpreted.  But  the  ordinary  interpretation  is 
merely  that  which  has  been  laken  iu  this  body,  that  is, 
that  a  clergyman  is  not  to  officiate  by  reading  prayers 
or  administering  the  sacrament  within  the  parish,  mean- 
ing within  the  territorial  limits  of  another  clergyman. 
But  even  with  that  interpretation  it  does  not  work  such 
restrictions  as  were  suggested  by  the  gentleman  speaking 
on  this  floor  yesterday  and  to-daj'.  Bishop  White,  if  he 
were  living,  would  still  preside  in  any  meeting  of  the 
Bible  Society,  or  in  any  organization  of  the  kind,  all  the 
prohibitions  of  all  the  rectors  in  any  city  to  the  contrary 
notwithstanding.  Have  we  forgotten  that  not  many 
years  ago  a  clergyman  from  one  of  the  dioceses  was 
called  on  to  make  an  address  before  such  a  society  in 
another  diocese,  and  in  a  parish  of  which  the  Bishop  of 
the  diocese  was  rector,  and  the  Bishop  himself,  being 
also  a  rector  of  the  parish,  prohibited  him  from  thus 
speaking.  But  the  prohibition  was  of  no  avail.  It  did 
not  apply  to  such  a  case.  Nor  does  the  prohibition  ap- 
ply to  any  such  case  as  we  have  read  of  in  the  papers  of 
this  morning,  where  we  find  one  of  our  most  devoted 
Bishops  appears  at  a  meeting  in  this  city  having  in  view 
the  amelioration  of  the  condition  of  the  poor  Indians. 
Nor  did  it  prevent  that  bishop  from  going  into  the 
Friend's  meeting-house  iu  another  city,  and  there  mak- 
ing his  statement  and  address. 
■  In  times  past  it  has  been  generally  ruled  by  many 
that  certain  bishops  and  certain  clergymen  oflended  by 
any  such  conduct  as  that,  while  certain  other  liishops  and 
clergymen  were  only  advancing  the  interests  of  the 
Church.  1  think  now  we  are  disposed  to  regard  this 
canon  and  the  object  it  has  in  view  and  the  whole  sub- 
ject in  a  more  temperate  aspect.  We  are  supposed  to 
consider  it  without  prejudice  ;  and  in  opposing  the  reso- 
lution or  the  amendment  offered  by  my  brother  [The 
Rev.  Dr.  Norton],  I  only  desire  to  get  a  better  one  and 
that  is  the  one  I  referred  to  and  which  I  think  would 
still  be  sufficient — that  "no  clergyman  shall  officiate 
within  the  territorial  limits  of  another  clergyman  except 
transiently."  Although  I  know  this  very  phrase  excited 
a  smile  on  yesterday,  it  is  better  it  should  excite  a  smile 
than  a  fi-ovvn.  It  appears  to  me  that  if  any  clergyman 
desires  to  ofliciate  temporarily  or  transiently  within  the 
bounds  of  my  parish,  it  is  better  that  he  should  do  so  ; 
it  will  be  a  safety-valve  for  him,  and  the  people  ;  and  I 
would  say  befoi-e  this  convention   that  we  must  remem- 


89 


ber  the  suggestion  to  an  Anti-Lutheran :  "Do  not  reject 

everything  or  do  not  object  to  everything  simply  because 
Luther  is  in  favor  of  it."  We  must  view  tlie  subject 
impartially  ;  and  although  we  may  not  arrive  at  a  satis- 
factory conclusion  now;  I  trust  at  no  distant  day  we 
will.  K  any  clergyman  were  officiating  in  my  parochial 
limits  more  than  transiently  and  against  my  will,  then 
his  intention  must  be  looked  into.  T  here  wonld  remark 
that  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  offered  what  1 
conceive  to  be  an  irresistible  argument  in  behalf  of  the 
amendment  I  proposed.  The  intention  must  be  looked 
to,  and  that  must  be  passed  upon,  and  then,  too,  there 
will  come  in  what  he  ought  to  regard  as  of  greater  force 
and  power  than  this  canonical  restriction,  namely,  his 
solemn  ordination  vow  to  maintain  and  set  torward  peace 
and  quietness  among  all  christian  men  as  well  as  among 
those  immediately  committed  to  his  care.  That  would 
be  a  principle  while  the  canon  is  a  rule. 

Rev.  Samuel  Clements,  of  Ohio. — I  would  exhibit 
one  or  two  difficulties  in  the  canon  as  it  now  stands,  and 
also  refer  to  the  difficulty  in  the  amendment  offered  by 
the  gentleman  from  Virginia.  In  regard  to  the  enforce- 
ment of  the  canon  itself  in  a  literal  sense,  I  suppose  we 
all  see  it  is  an  impossibility  in  many  cases.  The  gentle- 
man from  Virginia  who  last  spoke  wishes  to  allow  a  min- 
ister to  enter  into  the  parish  of  another  minister  to  offi- 
ciate only  transiently.  He  thinks  this  would  be  better 
than  the  amendment  offered  by  my  brother,  the  deputy 
from  the  Diocese  of  Virginia.  Let  us  look  at  this  case 
in  one  of  its  aspects.  I  am  the  rector  of  a  parish  lying 
very  near  to  the  city  of  Cincinnati.  Most  members  of 
my  Church  have  a  very  close  connection  with  that  city, 
many  of  them  being  engaged  in  business  there,  drawing 
their  supplies  from  there,  and  mingling  socially  with  the 
people  of  Cincinnati.  In  my  parish  are  four  families 
that  attend  churches  in  Cincinnati.  Now  the  ministers 
of  the  resjiective  congregations  in  which  they  are,  come 
out  to  CUfton,  leaving  their  own  city,  coming  into  a  dif- 
ferent civil  division  of  the  state,  entering  into  the  village 
of  Clifton,  and  there  officiate  in  those  families — they  bap- 
tize and  they  administer  the  Lord's  Supper.  Here  is  a 
plain  violation  of  the  letter  of  the  canon.  Would  it  do 
any  good  to  say  that  those  gentlemen  might  follow  their 
parishioners  and  officiate  transiently?  One  cannot  sup- 
pose that  any  reasonable  man  would  object  to  this  thing. 
This  is  one  of  the  cases  in  which  we  cannot  comply  with 
this  canon.  There  is  another  matter  where  the  spirit  of 
the  canon  may  be  violated  without  at  all  touching  its  letter. 
There  is  nothing  said  in  this  canon  about  a  minister  com- 
ing into  the  parish  of  another  minister  and  into  his  con- 
gregation and  endeavoring  to  lead  them  ofl'  from  the 
parish  of  a  brother  minister  into  his  own  parish.  There 
is  no  law  against  this,  and  yet  there  is  a  greater  tempta- 
tion to  this  than  the  other  matters.  If  we  are  going  to 
legislate  at  all  in  respect  to  this  matter,  why  not  have  a 
canon  that  will  cover  the  whole  ground  ?  We  leave  these 
other  matters  to  Christian  courtesy,  and  though  there  are 

12 


occasional  violations  of  Christian  courtesy,  yet  I  suppose 
these  are  very  rare,  and  the  Church  is  saved  the  disgrace 
of  a  public  trial  in  respect  to  tliem.  It  seems  to  me  that 
we  might  get  rid  of  this  difficulty  by  leaving  it  to  Chris- 
tain  charity;  and  I  believe  there  would  be  less  trouble 
in  the  Church  if  there  were  no  canon  whatever  on  this 
subject.  I  believe  that  a  great  deal  of  our  difficulty  is 
created  by  the  canon.  If  we  have  a  prohibitory  canon 
at  all,  let  us  have  such  a  eanon  as  we  can  entirely  under- 
stand, and  let  us  see  clearly,  too,  that  there  is  not  the 
confusion  which  now  prevails  in  respect  to  the  parish, 
whether  it  is  bounded  by  some  territorial  limit,  or  whether 
it  embraces  the  idea,  as  more  important,  of  a  congrega- 
tion, of  a  certain  number  of  families  attached  to  a  par- 
ticular Church.  I  believe  we  would  do  better  if  in  an- 
swer to  the  memorials  of  these  parishioners  we  were  to 
repeal  this  canon.  I  believe  we  can  better  go  on  har- 
moniously without  restrictions. 

Rev.  Dr.  J.  L.  Clakk. — I  happen  to  be  mid-way  be 
tween  Wisconsin  and  Virginia,  and  I  shall  not  appeal  to 
the  passions  on  either  side.  I  want  to  .isk  the  attention 
of  the  House  to  the  principle  of  the  present  canon.  We 
all  know  what  the  canon  is;  we  have  had  very  little 
trouble  with  it;  it  has  adjusted  itself  in  the  various  dio- 
ceses to  different  individuals  quietly.  In  the  diocese  to 
which  I  belong  it  is  common  to  go  into  a  different  parish 
to  attend  a  funeral,  but  with  suitable  explanation,  of 
course,  afterwards.  It  is  not  an  uncommon  thing  for  one 
clergyman  to  go  into  another  parish  and  marry  a  couple 
if  he  happens  to  be  related  to  them  ;  but  he  always  con- 
sults the  rector  previously  or  subsequently  informs  him; 
I  have  never  heard  of  any  trouble.  At  present  I  am 
not  disposed  to  any  change.  There  are  parishes  in  this 
city,  one-third  of  whose  members  go  into  the  country, 
and  remain,  in  some  instances,  from  June  until  October 
or  November.  Suppose  that  they  have  daughters  that 
wish  to  be  married,  or  suppose  a  son  wishes  to  be  bap- 
tized. Under  this  canon  word  is  sent  to  a  pastor,  who 
comes  into  the  country  and  performs  the  service;  he 
reads  nothing.  Is  it  said  that  this  is  reading  the  service  ? 
Yet  for  six  months  in  the  year  these  persons  are  mem- 
bers of  another  parish ;  they  take  pews  there.  Are  we 
in  Connecticut  to  have  city  rectors  coming  into  our  par- 
ishes and  performing  service  for  four  or  si.x  months  in 
the  year  without  saying  any  thingabout  it  to  their  proper 
rectors?  Under  the  canon  as  it  now  stands  we  shall 
have  none  of  these  troubles.  If  a  rector  comes  into  the 
country  he  expects  always  to  consult  the  rector  there 
and  get  his  assent.  I  have  not  known  in  my  life  a  ease 
of  refusal;  but  I  have  known  cases  in  my  experience 
where  there  might  have  been  great  difficulty  and  trouble 
had  there  been  no  canon  whatever.  I  hope  never  to 
see  any  time  when  there  shall  be  no  canon.  We  are 
human,  and  we  need  rules  to  govern  us.  Change  this 
canon  as  now  proposed,  and  what  will  be  the  result? 
The  clergyman  may  perform  the  service  at  a  private 
house,  and  yet  the  rector  of  the  parish  can  say  nothing 


90 


Let  us  look  at  the  practical  operation  as  it  must  occur. 
The  change  proposed  would  be  disastrous,  indeed,  in 
many  places  in  New  England  where  persons  are  spend- 
ing a  portion  of  their  time  in  the  country,  and  as  much 
the  members  of  a  parish  in  the  country  as  in  the  city. 
I  can  conceive  it  possible  that  a  city  rector  having  been 
many  years  in  his  place  might  go  to  the  parish  of  a  young 
clergyman  in  the  country,  without  much  experience, 
and  cause  him  very  much  trouble  if  there  were  no  canon 
in  the  way.  The  people  would  be  glad  to  hear  him ;  he 
is  an  eloquent  man,  and  preaches  the  Gospel  more  faith- 
fully, and  draws  around  him  many  parishioners.  Now 
what  can  this  young  minister  do?  he  has  no  protection; 
every  possible  service  could  be  performed,  and  unless 
the  Prayer-Book  were  read  (and  it  might  be  recited  from 
memory),  and  unless  there  was  preaching  (and  there 
might  be  many  exhortations  which  might  not  be  called 
preaching),  there  would  be  no  remedy. 

Judge  Otis  : — I  should  like  to  read  the  canon  as  it 
was  originally  adopted  in  1  792.  [Judge  Otis  then  read 
the  canon  of  1792.]  It  will  be  seen  that  the  additions 
have  been  very  few  indeed  in  seventy-six  years.  Now 
if  a  canon  has  stood  for  seventy-six  years  in  this  Church 
we  should  be  very  slow  to  change  it.  Another  sugges- 
tion. It  is  proposed  to  legislate  against  intents.  I  have 
run  my  eyes  over  the  canons  of  this  Church  now  in  ex- 
istence ;  I  have  not  found  an  attempt  to  legislate  against 
intents — saying  that  a  man  shall  not  do  so  and  so,  with 
this  or  that  intent.  We  must  legislate  against  acts. 
One  other  suggestion.  We  propose  amendments  here 
as  amendments  have  been  proposed  time  and  again. 
They  are  referred  to  a  committee.  They  look  plausible  ; 
we  get  together  in  our  committee-room,  eleven  men  of 
the  Committee  on  Canons  sitting  around  a  table.  The 
amendment  is  read ;  it  looks  plausible ;  but  here  are 
four  doctors  of  divinity  with  thirty  or  forty  years  ex- 
perience ;  one  will  commence  to  pull  it  to  pieces  and 
show  the  operation  of  it  here  and  there ;  and  it  looks 
immediately  as  if  the  treatment  had  made  of  it  an  eccle- 
siastical bird  of  another  color,  entirely  different  from 
what  it  was  when  first  presented.  I  must  say  it  is  a 
verj'  difficult  task  to  change  this  canon  and  make  it  sat- 
isfactory. 

Hev.  Dr.  Haight  : — I  beg  the  gentleman  will  add 
that  not  all  the  members  of  the  committee  are  D.  D.'s, 
and  not  all  the  pulling  is  done  by  them.     (Laughter.) 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead  : — The  suggestion  of  my  friend  from 
Illinois  ought  to  have  much  weight  on  the  minds  of  this 
House  before  they  undertake  to  make  a  change.  A 
friend  from  Virginia  has  spoken  of  Christian  courtesy ; 
repeal  the  canon  entirely  and  Christian  courtesy  will  do 
all  the  rest. 

Kev.  Dr.  Andrews  : — It  is  a  mistake ;  that  was  not 
my  opinion,  but  that  of  the  gentleman  from  Ohio. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead  (continuing)  : — I  am  prepared  to  say 
that  the  condition  of  humanity  in  which  Christian  cour- 
tesy or  gentlemanly  courtesy  is  to  be  expected  never  I 


existed  in  this  country  to  a  higher  degree  than  in  the 
gentlemen  of  the  old  school  who  constituted  the  Church 
when  this  canon  was  formed ;  and  yet  they  found   it 
necessary,  in  that  early  state  of  the  Church,  to  pass  this 
very  canon  in  1792.     This  canon  has  existed  ever  since. 
Christian  courtesy  may  do  a  great  deal ;  conscience  and 
the  fear  of  God  may  do  much ;  but  there  are  men  who 
are  fanatics ;  I  am  willing  to  attribute  to  them  honesty 
of  intention,  but   they   have   their  own   crotchets   and 
Christian  courtesy  fails.     The  moment  I  am  possessed 
of  the  idea  that  I  bear  a  commission  to  go  and  preach 
here  and  there  and  everywhere,  what  but  the  restraint 
of  the  law  can  hold  me  back  ?     I  recollect  an  anecdote 
related  to  me  by  a  gentleman  who,  I  believe,  heard  the 
remark  himself     On  a  certain  occasion,  the  chief  mag- 
istrate of  Edinburgh  addressed  a  large  assemblage  of 
people.     He  told  them  that  a  certain  event  was  to  take 
place,  which  would  draw  together  a  large  multitude ; 
and  he  requested  them,  especially  the  Hoi  polloi,  to  con- 
duct themselves  with  the  greatest  degree  of  propriety. 
He  appealed  to  religious  sentiment ;  "  for,  remember," 
he  said,  "  the  eye  of  God  will  be  upon  you  ;  and  if  that 
is  not  sufficient,  the  eye  of  the  Edinburgh  police  will  be 
upon  you."     [Laughter.]     There  are  men  in  the  Church 
who  need  to  be  under  a  police  regulation.     They  may 
not  intend  to  be  factious,  but  they  are   factious.     Look 
at  this  canon,  and  the  effect  of  it ;  you  hear  everywhere 
how  coui'tesy  has  been  exercised,  and  those  who  do  not 
know   what  courtesy  means,  violate   it  by  their  very 
language.     Now  repeal  it,  and  what  are  we  to  do  with 
such  men  ?    We,  in  the  country,  who  have  our  parochial 
jurisdiction  strictly  marked  out,  know  what  the   effect 
would  be — we  should  soon  have  our  parishes  in  an  up- 
roar.    There  is  no  rector  but  will  have  some  few  men 
who  will  be  displeased  with  him,  who  know  not  why  and 
care  not  wherefore.     Let  there  be  two  or  three  such 
men   in   a   parish,  and  rescind  this  law.     These  men 
have  friends  who  come  and  visit  them  in  the  summer  ; 
they  say,  "  Bring  down  your  pastor  ;  he  is  an  eloquent 

man,  and  we  don't  hke  this  old  fellow,  Dr. ;  bring 

your  pastor  here  ; "  and  though  he  comes  but  tempora- 
rily, he  may  soon  draw  off  enough  to  break  up  the  con- 
gregation. Such  will  be  the  effects  of  rescinding  this 
canon.  Beware !  Let  that  which  has  existed  some 
sixty  odd  years,  stand  as  it  is.  I  want  no  alteration ; 
but  if  there  is  any  alteration  made,  it  should  be  to  make 
the  canon  more  stringent.  I  think  it  is  sufficient  as 
events  recently  have  proved — sufficient  for  the  protec- 
tion of  the  Church — sufficient  for  all  the  liberty  that 
every  man  in  the  Church  has  a  right  to  require  or  ex- 
pect. With  these  views,  I  say  that  I  hope  this  canon 
will  be  left  untouched,  though,  if  the  House  sends  it 
with  instructions  to  the  committee  of  which  I  am  chair- 
man, we  will  obey  them,  of  course. 

Rev.  Mr.  Perkins:  It  seems  to  me  that  a  great  deal 
has  been  said  which  is  irrelevant.  The  gentleman  who  has 
just  taken  his  seat  has  spoken  at  length  against  the  repeal 
of  this  canon,  and  implied  that,  if  it  were   repealed,  there 


91 


would  be  no  police  rofculation  left.  Now,  I  understand  that 
we  have  no  such  proposition  belbre  us;  we  are  not  to  vote 
upon  the  question  of  a  repeal  of  the  canon.  The  gentle- 
man has  made  a  long  argument,  and  other  gentlemen  have 
made  arguments  that  this  canon  has  existed  so  long  and 
worked  so  well  that  it  would  be  unwise  to  alter  it  in  any 
way  whatever ;  yet  it  has  been  only  within  one  or  two  days 
that  the  majority  of  this  House  have  voted  to  amend  that 
very  canon,  and  have  sent  the  amendment  to  the  House  of 
Bishops,  and  asked  their  concurrence  in  it.  Strange  incon- 
sistency. It  seems  to  me  that  that  is  an  inconsistency  that 
ought  to  impress  itself  upon  the  minds  of  this  House. 
Tlien,  again,  I  hold  that  a  large  number  of  the  members  of 
this  House  have  thought  it  would  be  wise  to  make  some 
amendraeut  to  this  canon.  The  large  number  of  memorial- 
ists who  have  memorialized  this  House  to  the  same  end,  do 
deserve  some  respect  at  the  hands  of  this  House,  and,  if  it 
can  be  done,  compatibly  with  the  interests  of  this  Church, 
these  memorialists  ought  to  have  their  petition  granted,  and 
the  wishes  of  so  many  members  of  this  House  ought  to  be 
consulted.  I  wish  to  ask  this  single  question :  what  objec- 
tion is  there  to  the  amendment,  that  has  been  proposed,  to 
this  canon  which  does  not  exist  against  the  canon  as  it  now 
stands  ?  As  it  now  stands  it  is  evidently  liable  to  miscon- 
struction. Its  ambiguity  is  so  great  that  men  equally  learn- 
ed in  the  law,  equally  informed  as  to  the  history  of  this 
Church  and  its  canonical  law,  differ  entirely  as  to  the 
amending  of  the  canon.  And  I  believe,  sir,  that  the  per- 
sons implicated  in  the  troubles  which  have  been  the  occa- 
sion of  bringing  this  matter  before  us,  were  equally  honest 
in  their  construction  of  the  canon.  Nor  do  I  believe  that 
there  was  any  intention  to  violate  Christian  courtesy  on  the 
part  of  the  brethren  to  whom  reference  has  now  been 
made.  Not  only  so,  but  it  is  evident  that  on  the  floor  of 
this  House  there  is  great  diversity  of  opinion  as  to  the 
amending  of  the  canon  as  it  now  stands.  I  believe  that  in 
the  case  to  which  reference  has  been  made,  and  which  has 
been  the  occasion  of  bringing  these  memorials  before  us, 
there  was  no  violation  of  the  canon ;  and  I  doubt  uot  that 
in  that  opinion  I  do  uot  differ  from  the  very  large  majority 
of  the  House.  Now,  what  we  wish  to  do — for  we  are  all 
making  at  the  same  end,  quietness  and  peace,  the  general 
interests  of  the  Church — is  simply  so  to  amend  that  canon 
that  the  meaning  of  it  shall  be  plain  and  patent  upon  its 
face ;  and  I  do  think  that  if  the  members  of  this  House 
will  simply  consider  the  amendment  as  it  is  proposed,  they 
will  see  that  it  tends  to  promote  peace  and  quietness  in  this 
Church,  without  disturbing  the  relations  of  any  rector  to 
his  parisli,  oi'  of  kiudly  feeling  that  ought  to  exist  between 
the  ditl'ercnt  ministers  of  this  Church  to  which  we  belong. 

Rev.  C.  P.  Gadsden,  of  South  Carolina — offered  the 
following  as  an  amendment  to  Dr.  Norton's  amendment : 

liesol-ved,  That  it  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Canons,  with  instructions  to  report  that  the  terms  of 
this  canon  defining  paiochial  limits  apply  only  to  mem- 
bers of  this  Church. 

A  Deputy — moved  to  strike  out  the  word  "  instruct" 
and  insert  "  consider  and  report." 

Gov.  Stevenson: — I  hope  that  amendment  will 
fail.  This  has  been  twice  before  the  Committee  on 
Canons,  and  we  have  their  opinion  in  the  most  perfect 


form  they  were  able  to  present  it,  and  after  the  most 
deliberate  judgment.  Now  let  us  either  lay  it  upon  the 
table  or  vote  the  instruction.  Let  us  meet  the  question 
fair  and  full  upon  both  sides,  and  either  jiass  the  resolu- 
tion with  instructions  or  lay  the  whole  subject  upon  the 
table. 

Rev.  Dr.  Adams — moved  to  lay  Dr.  Norton's  resolu- 
tion upon  the  table. 

Rev.  Dr.  Littlejohn  : — I  hope  the  member  will  with- 
draw his  motion. 

The  vote  was  then  taken  on  Dr.  Adams's  motion,  and, 
after  a  division,  it  was  carried  by  ayes,  99,  noes,  92. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight  : — I  submit  to  the  House  that  it  is 
a  most  unfortunate  termination  of  this  matter  to  have 
such  a  vote. 

Mr.  G.  W.  Cass: — I  presume  that  many,  with  my- 
self, in  thus  voting  to  lay  upon  the  table,  did  so  because 
they  did  not  wish  the  resolutions  to  go  to  the  committee 
with  instructions.  I  would  move  a  reconsideration  if 
the  resolution  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Virginia 
should  be  changed  from  "  instruction  "  to  "  reconsider 
and  report." 

Rev.  Dr.  Norton  : — I  will  accept  the  amendment 
with  pleasure. 

Mr.  Cass  . — Then,  I  move  a  reconsideration. 

Mr.  J.  B.  Doe  : — 1  hope  this  question  will  not  be  recon- 
sidered ;  we  have  been  playing  fast  and  loose  for  about 
two  weeks,  and  if  we  paid  the  same  attention  to  reports 
of  our  committees  that  is  usually  accorded  them,,  we 
might  have  got  through  all  the  business  before  this 
time.  I  do  not  propose  to  express  my  opinion  on  the 
merits  of  the  question  under  discussion.  Since  1  have 
been  a  member  of  this  House,  I  have  paid  particular 
attention  to  the  reports  of  the  Committee  on  Canons ; 
and  although  I  can  appreciate  the  eloquence,  and  the 
wisdom,  and  the  piety,  of  those  individuals  who  have 
engaged  in  the  debates,  I  have  been  particularly  struck 
with  the  wisdom  of  the  reports  of  the  Committee  on 
Canons  which  Rave  been  addres.sed  to  this  House.  We 
have  consumed  four  days  in  discussing  and  trying  to 
break  down  two  reports  from  the  Committee  on  Canons. 
And,  then,  after  we  got  through  with  the  discussion, 
their  views  were  adopted ;  and  I  am  perfectly  satisfied 
to  pay  that  respect  to  the  repoits  of  this  House  to  which 
they  are  entitled.  I  hope  this  question  will  rest  where 
it  is.  I  will  here  give  notice  that  if  this  question  comes 
before  the  House  again,  I  shall  take  the  liberty  of  ex- 
pressing my  views  at  length  upon  it,  at  least  as  far  as 
ten  minutes  will  permit. 

Rev.  Dr.  Adams  : — I  would  be  willing  to  vote  for  the 
reconsideration  if  the  word  "  instruction  "  were  removed 
[an  amendment  which  Rev.  Dr.  Norton  had  sometime 
before  accepted]. 

Rev.  Dr.  Little.john,  of  New  York : — I  am  glad  to 
hear  that  my  brother  from  Wisconsin  has  acceded  to 
this  proposition  tor  reconsideration.  The  way  in  which 
this  matter  now  stands  is  certainly  very  unfortunate. 


92 


The  vote  which  has  been  taken  to  lay  this  matter  upon 
the  table  has  not  brought  out  the  real  sense  of  this 
House  upon  the  motion.  I  voted  against  the  proposition 
to  lay  npon  the  table,  because  I  am  in  favor  of  fair  play ; 
and  when  an  issue  is  brought  before  the  House  as  direct- 
ly as  in  this  case,  I  do  not  believe  it  is  just  to  either 
party  to  terminate  the  question  in  the  way  it  has  been 
terminated  now.  Let  us  have  a  direct  vote  upon  this 
matter,  and  let  the  sentiments  of  the  House  be  revealed, 
and  not  covered  up  as  now. 

Judge  Battle — withdrew  his  motion  to  lay  the  mo- 
tion to  reconsider  upon  the  table. 

Kev.  Dr.  Richard  S.  Mason  : — I  should  be  glad  to 
have  this  subject  reconsidered.  I  was  opposed  to  laying 
it  on  the  table.  I  wish  to  see  two  things  protected:  the 
rights  of  a  rector,  and  as  ample  liberty  as  possible  of 
preaching  the  Gospel. 

Reconsideration  was  agreed  to. 

The  question  now  recurred  upon  the  resolution  of  Dr. 
Norton,  modified  by  the  substitution  of  "  consider  and 
report"  for  the  word  "  instruct;"  and  it  was  adopted. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight — presented  report  No.  18  from  the 
Committee  on  Canons,  and  the  resolution  of  non-con- 
currence on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Deputies  with  the 
resolution  of  the  House  of  Bishops,  admitting  the  clergy 
and  ministry  of  England  and  Can<ada  to  all  the  rights 
of  this  Church ;  which  resolution  was  adopted. 

Mr.  Meigs — gave  notice  of  his  intention  to  move  a 
reconsideration  of  the  action  of  the  House,  with  refer- 
ence to  the  canon  concerning  Assistant  Bishops. 

Judge  Sheffey  : — This  is  a  summary  proceeding  at 
the  heel  of  a  long  and  arduous  session,  to  bring  back 
upon  the  House  a  question  that  was  deliberately  debated 
and  disposed  of  1  hope  the  vote  is  not  to  be  pressed 
now,  and  I  would  suggest  that  it  should  be  postponed 
until  to-morrow,  at  half-past  11,  that  there  may  then 
certainly  be  a  full  House  to  vote  upon  it,  especially  since 
a  vote  upon  the  merits  of  the  question  will  require  a 
vote  by  orders  and  dioceses. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight  : — The  canon  has  been  sent  to  the 
House  of  Bishops. 

The  mover  of  reconsideration  accepted  Judge  Shef- 
fey's  suggestion. 

Mr.  Taylor — moved  that  a  message  be  sent  to  the 
House  of  Bishops  requesting  a  return  of  the  canon. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mulchahey — raised  the  point  of  order, 
that,  after  the  report  of  the  standing  committees  and 
before  motions  and  resolutions,  reports  of  special  com- 
mittees are  in  order,  and  that  he  was  ready  to  submit  a 
report  from  a  special  committee  on  the  subject  of  the 
Provincial  system. 

Rev.  Mr.  Rogers,  of  Texas — suggested  that  the  re- 
consideration could  not  be  deferred  till  to-morrow,  be- 
cause a  reconsideration  was  required  to  be  made  within 
two  days  after  the  action  to  be  reconsidered. 

Mr.  Taylor  : — It  is  the  notice  of  reconsideration  that 
is  required  within  the  two  days,  and  not  the  motion. 


A  motion  to  adjourn  was  lost. 

The  motion  to  reconsider  was  adopted,  and  the  recon- 
sideration was  deferred  until  to-morrow. 
The  House  then  adjom-ned. 

THIRTEENTH   DAY'S  PROCEEDINGS. 

Wednesday,  Oct.  21st,  18G8. 

The  House  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

Morning  Prayer  was  said  by  Rev.  Dr.  Wheat  of  Ten- 
nessee, and  Rev.  Dr.  Mason,  of  North  Carolina. 

The  Benediction  was  pronounced  by  Bishop  Kemper, 
of  Wisconsin. 

The  journal  of  yesterday's  proceedings  was  read. 

Mr.  Taylor — moved  that  a  message  be  sent  to  the 
House  of  Bishops  requesting  the  return  of  the  canon 
relating  to  assistant  bishops.     This  motion  was  agreed  to. 

The  president  said  that  hereafter,  in  accordance  with 
the  usual  course  in  such  matters,  reports  would  be  re- 
ceived as  a  matter  of  course  and  passed  upon  at  once, 
if  without  debate  ;  but  that,  if  they  should  give  rise  to 
debate,  they  would  be  laid  upon  the  table,  to  be  called 
up  in  their  order. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight — submitted  the  report  No.  2(J,  from 
the  committee  on  canons  with  reference  to  a  proposed 
amendment  of  Canon  9,section  3,  Title  2,  and  a  resolution 
of  amendment  striking  out  the  words  "of  this  church'' 
ailer  the  words  "presiding  bishop,"  in  said  canon.  On 
motion  this  resolution  was  adopted. 

Another  report  from  the  Committee  on  Canons  was 
submitted  by  Rev.  Dr.  Haight,  with  a  modified  form  of 
canon  recommitted,  relating  to  the  consecration  of 
churches. 

Judce  Battle  : — By  reference  to  the  printed  canon 
submitted  the  other  day,  the  changes  which  have  been 
proposed  are  easily  discernible.  The  gentlemen  who 
raised  the  difficulties  with  regard  to  the  canon  as  origin- 
ally proposed  had  the  kindness  to  meet  the  committee 
and  mention  what  were  the  peculiar  laws  of  their  own 
State  and  the  condition  of  things  to  which  they  wished 
to  apply  a  remedy.  It  seems  that  in  the  Diocese  of 
Vermont,  churches  were  built  by  subscribers  of  all  class- 
es of  people — some  churchmen  and  some  who  were  not  ; 
and  they  became  tenants  in  common  of  the  churches  ; 
and  therefore  a  part  of  the  church  was  frequently  owned 
by  a  man  who  was  not  a  member  of  the  Church,  perhaps 
an  infidel  or  Unitarian  or  person  of  any  other  denomi- 
nation. The  object  of  the  canon  is  that  no  church  shall, 
be  consecrated  unless  the  title  is  secured  for  our  own 
Church.  Therefore  it  is  provided  in  the  first  section 
that  the  title  is  all  to  precede  consecration.  These  mod- 
ifications, I  was  informed  by  the  gentleman  by  whom 
the  matter  was  recommitted  would  be  entirely  satisfac- 
tory. There  was  another  objection,  that  the  title  should 
be  a  title  in  fee.  But  it  is  well  known  to  all  lawyers 
that  whenever  a  title  is  mentioned  it  means  a  title  in  fee. 
It  was  thought  best  by  the  committee  to  leave  the  title 
indefinite,  because,  in  some  States,  it  is  impossible  to  ob- 
tain land  in  fee  simple,  as  in  some  of  the    Southern 


93 


States,  where  much  land  is  in  the  hands  of  a  corporation 
that  will  not  grant  anything  but  a  long  lease.  It  wjis 
thought  best  to  use  general  terms  which  would  apply  to 
the  best  title  which  could  be  obtained.  It  will  be  seen 
that  the  canon  as  now  presented  requires  that  not  only 
shall  the  building  and  the  laud  be  secure  from  debt,  but 
that  the  title  also  shall  be  secure. 

Rev.  Dr.  Hare — inquired  as  to  the  effect  of  certain 
laws  of  Pennsylvania. 

.Judge  CONYNGHAM: — As  to  what  efl'ect  this  may 
have  upon  what  is  commonly  known  in  Pennsylvania  as 
the  Price  Law, — the  law  of  Pennsylvania  must  control. 
There  is  no  question  so  far  as  that  is  concerned,  with  re- 
gard to  Pennsylvania,  under  her  act  with  regard  to  cor- 
porations. There  is  a  provision  that  the  property  must 
remain  under  the  control  of  the  lay  members  of  the  cor- 
poration or  some  committee,  or  some  authority  or  other 
of  which  there  is  a  majority  of  lay  members.  The  prop- 
erly is  under  the  control  of  the  laity  under  the  law  of 
Pennsylvania,  (passed  in  1856,)  and  no  provision  of  this 
kind  can  supercede  that  law  or  destroy  its  effect. 

Itev.  Dr.  Goodwin — suggested  that  it  should  read  a 
church  or  chapel  which  shall  be  consecrated,  to  avoid 
any  ex  post  facto  eS'ect. 

The  President — If  this  requires  further  discussion 
it  must  lie  on  the  table  for  the  present. 

Message  No.  21  from  the  House  of  Bishops  announced 
their  non-concurrence  in  the  proposed  alteration  of  Can- 
on 'J,  Title  1,  increasing  the  period  of  probation  of  cler- 
gymen seeking  admission  from  other  Churches. 

Messages  No.  22  and  23  were  then  read,  the  former 
in  reference  to  education,  and  the  latter  with  reference 
to  adding  a  cycle  in  the  Prayer  Book. 

The  Committee  on  Canons  reported  with  reference 
to  an  inquiry  as  to  the  necessity  of  an  addition  to  article 
4,  of  the  Constitution,  of  the  words  "  or  by  the  Bishop 
himself  of  some  other  diocese"  or  some  phrase  equivalent 
thereto,  that  such  addition  was  inexpedient  and  asked  to 
be  discharged  from  the  further  consideration  of  the  sub- 
ject. 

On  motion  the  committee  was  discharged. 

The  Committee  on  Canons  asked  leave  to  withdraw  a 
report  of  the  canon  with  regard  to  federate  councils  with 
a  view  to  add  a  further  provision.     Agreed  to. 

The  Committee  on  the  General  Theological  Seminary 
made  their  report. 

The  committee  submitted  a  resolution  nominating 
trustees  from  the  various  dioceses. 

On  motion  of  Kev.  Dr.  Mead  the  resolution  was 
adopted. 

Rev.  Dr.  Hare,  of  Pennsylvania — offered  a  resolution 
that,  after  silent  prayer,  the  House  proceed  to  vote  on 
confirming  the  nomination  by  the  House  of  Bishops,  of 
the  Rev.  B.  Wistar  Morris,  as  Missionary  Bishop  of 
Oregon  and  Washington  Territory. 

Rev.  Dr.  Hare: — It  is  proper  for  a  member  of  the 
deputation  from  Pennsylvania  to  introduce  this  matter. 


I  have  known  Mr.  Morris  from  his  first  entrance  into 
the  ministry  ;  and  I  know  no  person  whose  nomination 
by  the  House  of  Bishops  would  give  me  more  pleasure. 
He  is  a  most  moderate  man,  where  moderation  is  appro- 
priate ;  full  of  energy  and  zeal ;  a  Christian  gentleman 
whose  election  I  believe  cannot  but  be  of  great  advantage 
to  our  Church  and  the  cause  of  Religion  generally. 

Mr.  William  Welsh,  of  Pennsylvania: — In  second- 
ing that  resolution  1  will  say  that  it  gives  me  great 
pain.  For  if  he  should  be  elected,  we  are  to  lose  about 
the  best  man  we  have  among  us.  We  have  no  man 
who  has  thrown  himself  into  the  work  of  the  Church 
with  more  energy  than  the  Rev.  Mr.  Morris  ;  who  is  a 
man,  every  inch  of  him  ;  and  everybody  on  the  Mission- 
ary Committee  of  the  Diocese  feels  him  ta  be  a  man.  He 
is  more  conversant  with  Missionary  matters  than  any 
other  man  in  the    diocese. 

Rev.  Dr.  Howe: — In  endorsing  aU  that  my  colleagues 
have  said  with  reference  to  Mr.  Morris,  I  wish  to  add 
one  item,  and  that  is,  he  is  a  man  of  remarkable  execu- 
tive ability. 

Rev.  C.  B.  Wyatt,  of  California : — The  Rev.  gentle- 
man from  Pennsylvania  [Dr.  Hare]  anticipated  me  in 
the  pleasure  which  I  hope'd  to  have  in  offering  the  reso- 
lution he  has  offered.  I  would  add  a  few  words  of  en- 
dorsement. I  have  enjoyed  unusual  facilities  perhaps 
for  knowing  the  territory  comprised  in  the  jurisdiction 
of  Oregon  and  Washington,  and  for  becoming  acquaint- 
ed with  the  character  of  the  jjopulatiou  there.  I  have 
also  enjoyed  an  intimate  friendship  with  the  Rev.  gen- 
tleman nominated  by  the  House  of  Bishops,  beginning 
with  the  time  when  he  set  out  in  his  studies  to  prepare 
for  Holy  Orders.  Sir,  in  that  wide  jurisdiction  it  will  be 
easily  supposed,  when  you  remember  the  variety  of  re- 
ligious opinions  represented,  when  you  remember  how 
defective  the  education  has  been  in  the  case  of  many  of 
those  people,  when  you  remember  that  their  tempers  are 
very  sensitive,  especially  as  to  any  one  who  is  placed  in 
authority  to  teach  them,  it  will  be  eeisily  supposed  that 
peculiar  qualifications  are  necessary  in  the  man  who 
shall  be  presented  to  supervise  that  part  of  the  Church's 
field.  Sir,  let  me  give  before  this  House  my  humble 
testimony  from  intimate  relations  of  friendship  with  that 
gentleman,  that  in  his  firm  judgment,  in  his  remarkable 
executive  ability,  in  his  power  of  sympathizing  with 
those  who  from  false  instruction  have  received  religious 
prejudices  and  are  under  religious  errors,  and  above  all, 
in  his  genuine,  healthy,  all-pervading  piety,  this  Church 
has  the  best  guarantee  that  the  affairs  of  that  jurisdiction 
will  be  administered  wisely,  and  well,  to  promote  the 
gieat  designs  of  the  Gospel  of  our  Lord,  to  secure  the 
religious  welfare  of  tliat  people  and  the  honor  of  Al- 
mighty God. 

Rev.  Chas.  Bueck,  of  Delaware: — After  Mr.  Morris 
had  been  received  into  the  Church,  being  baptized  by 
the  sainted  George  VV.  Natt,  he  came  to  his  father's 
house  in  my  parish,   gave   up   the  business  in  which  he 


94 


was  engaged,  and  determined  to  consecrate  himself  to 
the  service  of  our  Blessed  Lord  in  the  sacred  ministry. 
It  was  my  privilege  to  have  him  for  my  parishioner  for  a 
considerable  length  of  time  before  he  entered  the  Gen- 
eral Theological  Seminary,  and  I  have  since  that  time 
been  upon  the  most  intimate  relations  with  him.  Noth- 
ing in  a  period  of  thirty  years  has  interrupted  our 
friendship  in  the  least  degree  ;  aud  not  only  has  he  all 
the  qualifications  that  have  been  named  by  others,  but 
he  inherits  the  wisdom  and  judgment  of  his  father  and 
mother  in  a  high  degree ;  and  he  possesses  also  the  Di- 
vine gift  of  common  sense  in  as  high  a  degree  as  any 
any  man  that  I  know.  I  would  therefore,  give  my 
hearty  endorsement  to  everything  that  has  been  said. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haigut  : — -I  feel  it  due  to  Mr.  Morris  to 
say  that  having  been  educated  in  the  General  Theologi- 
cal Seminary  of  this  city,  he  won  the  hearts  of  all  the 
professors  there,  by  his  intelligence,  by  his  industry, 
aud  by  his  uniform  Christian  demeanor.  I  have  watched 
him  very  closely  from  that  time  down  to  the  present ; 
and  I  have  numbered  him  among  my  best  friends ;  and 
I  rejoice  from  the  bottom  of  my  heart  that  this  nomina- 
tion has  been  made. 

Kev.  Dr.  Van  Deusen  : — I  rise  to  concur  in  all  that 
has  been  said,  and  to  add  this  remark  that  1  believe  he 
belongs  to  that  class  of  Presbyters  whose  motto  is  Nulo 
episcopari  [I  do  not  desire  the  episcopate]. 

A  message  from  the  House  of  Bishops  was  here  re- 
ceived, returning  the  canon  concerning  assistant  bishops. 

The  form  of  testimonials  in  electing  a  Missionary 
Bishop  was  then  read  by  the  Secretary. 

On  motion  of  Rev.  Dr.  Hare,  his  resolution  was  then 
adopted. 

Rev.  Dr.  Shelton,  of  Western  New  York,  and  Mr. 
O.  S.  Seymour,  LL.U.,  of  Connecticut,  were  appointed 
to  act  as  tellers,  and  the  nomination  by  the  House  of 
Bishops  was  unanimously  confirmed,  by  a  vote  by  dio- 
ceses and  orders. 

On  the  announcement  of  the  vote,  the  Convention, 
rising,  sang  the  "Gloria  in  Excelsis." 

The  episcopal  testimonials  not  being  ready  for  signing, 
the  House  proceeded  to  receive  the  reports  of  com- 
mittees. 

The  Committee  on  Christian  Education  submitted  its 
report. 

Rev.  Dr.  Little,john  moved  that  the  report  and  res- 
olutions of  the  Committee  on  Christian  Education  be 
made  the  order  of  the  day  for  to-morrow  at  12  o'clock. 
Agreed  to. 

On  request  of  Rev.  Dr.  Mahan,  it  was  ordered  that 
the  report  of  the  Russo- Greek  Committee  be  printed. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  T.  Taylor,  of  Virginia,  his  resolu- 
tion (declaring  inexpedient  any  change  in  the  Prayer- 
Book)  was  made  the  order  of  the  day  for  to-morrow. 

The  PitESiDENT. — The  next  business  before  us  is  the 
resolution  for  the  re-cousidcration  of  the  canon  concern- 
ing Assistant  Bishops. 


P  Mr.  Meigs. — I  brought  that  up  at  a  late  hour  yester- 
day, and  briefly  stated  my  reasons  for  moving  a  re-con- 
sideration. ]  will  occupy  the  attention  of  the  House  for 
a  few  moments  while  I  state  more  at  large  the  reasons 
that  influenced  me.  I  voted  in  favor  of  that  proposition 
of  the  Committee  on  Canons,  perhaps  hastily,  but  mainly 
upon  the  ground  that  the  Committee  on  Canons  had  rec- 
ommended the  adoption  of  it.  I  was  strongly  influenced 
by  my  great  respect  for  that  committee.  I  thought  it 
was  perfectly  safe  to  vote  for  their  recommendation. 
But  after  twenty -four  hours'  reflection  I  became  satisfied 
there  were  very  serious  objections  to  it. 

The  President. — Will  the  gentleman  be  so  kind  as 
to  permit  a  suggestion  from  the  Chair?  The  matter  be- 
fore the  House  has  been  thoroughly  discussed;  and  if  it 
is  to  be  re-discussed  to-day  it  will  throw  out  a  great  deal 
of  business  that  is  to  come  before  the  House.  I  will  sug- 
gest that  it  be  postponed  to  Saturday,  and  then,  perhaps, 
a  vote  can  be  taken  without  discussion ;  but  in  the  mean- 
time let  us  go  on  to  reports  of  committees,  and  motions, 
aild  resolutions,  which  are  providing  new  business  for 
the  House. 

Mr.  Meigs. — I  am  willing  to  forego  any  further  talk 
upon  this  subject,  and  should  be  glad  that  a  vote  should 
be  taken  at  once  upon  the  subject. 

Rev.  Dr.  Adams. — This  is  the  order  of  the  day,  and 
I  think  the  gentleman  should  insist  that  it  be  kept  the 
order  of  the  day. 

Mr.  Meigs. — If  the  House  is  not  prepared  to  vote 
upon  the  subject  I  would  be  willing  to  postpone  it;  but 
I  think  the  House  is  prepared  to  consider  whether  it  is 
expedient  to  re-consider.  I  would  suggest  that  the  vote 
be  taken  at  once  to  test  the  sense  of  the  House. 

Judge  Conyngham. — I  simply  wish  to  call  the  atten- 
tion of  the  House  to  the  probable  effect  of  a  refusal  of 
this  canon;  and  it  is  calling  attention  to  Canon  13,  Sec- 
tion XL,  Title  I.:  "Every  bishop  in  this  Church  shall 
visit  the  Churches  within  his  diocese  at  least  once  in 
three  years,"  &c.  We  all  believe  that  at  least  once  in 
three  years  a  bishop  ought  to  visit  all  parts  of  his  diocese; 
we  all  believe  it  is  not  too  often.  If  this  provision  for 
assistant  bishops  should  not  be  made,  I  know  there  are 
many  dioceses  in  which  episcopal  visitations  must  be  de- 
ferred, for  the  purpose  of  saving  the  bishop's  health;  and 
it  is  not  necessary  for  any  man  to  sacrifice  his  health  to 
do  good. 

Calls  for  the  question. 

Rev.  Dr.  Adams,  of  Wisconsin,  called  for  the  vote  by 
dioceses  aud  orders. 

The  President. — The  motion  is  to  re-consider  the 
vote  adopting  on  the  part  of  this  House  an  amendment 
proposed  by  the  Committee  on  Canons  concerning  the 
election  of  assistant  bishops. 

Judge  Sheffey,  of  Virginia. — This  is  really  made 
the  test  question.  The  House  will  understand  that  if 
we  sliould  re-consider,  then  the  question  will  come  back 
again  upon  the  adoption  of  the  canon;  but  it  would 


95 


probably  be  best  to  dispose  of  it  on  a  tost  question,  and 
therefore  the  delegate  from  Wisconsin  has  oalleil  for  a 
vote  by  dioceses  and  orders. 

Rev.  Dr.  Adams. — I  have  withdrawn  it. 
Rev.  Dr.  Haigut. — Suppose  the   House  order  the 
matter  to  be  re-considered,  and  then  the  question  comes 
up  upon  the  passage  of  the  canon ;  is  not  that  open  to 
debate  ? 

The  President. — Certainly. 

Judge  Shepfky. — Those  who  are  in  favor  of  the  canon 
should  vote  in  favor  of  the  re-consideration ;  if  the  other 
side  carry  it,  those  in  favor  of  the  canon  had  better  not 
fight  any  farther. 

The  President. — The  question  will  be  taken  by  di- 
oceses and  orders,  and  those  who  are  in  favor  of  the 
canon  as  it  was  passed,  will,  of  course,  vote  in  the  nega- 
tive upon  this  question  of  re-consideration ;  and  those 
who  are  against  the  canon  as  passed  will  vote  to  re-con- 
sider. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight. — I  think  it  is  simply  a  question  of 
re-consideration.  1  feel  myself  free  to  vote  one  way  or 
the  other  without  reference  to  the  canon. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead. — The  question  must  necessarily  be 
a  test  question.  The  canon  is  the  voice  of  this  House. 
The  question  is,  shall  it  be  taken  up  and  re-considered? 
If  you  do  not  take  it  up,  you  leave  it  as  passed.  Those 
who  are  in  favor  of  leaving  the  canon  as  already  passed 
will  vote  no  on  the  question  of  re-consideration. 

The  vote  was  then  taken  by  dioceses  and  orders,  and 
resulted  as  follows:  Clerical  vote — ayes  24;  noes  6;  di- 
vided 5.  Lay  vote — ayes  17;  noes  14;  divided  4.  So 
the  re-consideration  was  defeated  by  non-concurrence  of 
orders. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mulchahey  stated,  as  preliminary  to  sulA 
mitting  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  the  Provincial 
System,  that  the  canon  to  whicli  the  report  had  refer- 
ence was  not  in  the  possession  of  the  committee  nor  of 
the  House,  the  Committee  on  Canons  having  been  al- 
lowed to  withdraw  it  for  amendment.  The  whole  diffi- 
culty, he  thought,  as  to  whether  the  amendment  to  be 
added  by  the  committee  would  render  inapplicable  the 
report,  could  be  remedied  by  allowing  the  Committee  on 
Canons  to  state  to  the  House  what  the  proposed  amend- 
ment is. 

Rev.  Dr.  Rylance. — Would  it  not  be  better  to  wait 
for  tlie  Committee  on  Canons  to  report,  and  then  let  this 
report  follow  it  in  order? 

Rev.  Dr.  Howe  said  that  the  Committee  on  Canons 
were  then  ready  to  report  bai:k  the  canon,  and  accord- 
ingly submitted  their  report,  which  embodied  a  canon, 
declaring  that  it  shall  be  lawful  for  any  dioceses  existing, 
or  hereafter  to  exist,  within  any  state,  to  establish  for 
themselves  a  Federate  Council,  representing  such  dio- 
ceses, which  may  deliberate  and  decide  upon  the  com- 
wion  interests  of  the  Church  within  (he  limits  aforesaid; 
but,  before  any  determinate  action  of  the  Council,  the 
powers  proposed  to  be  exercised  thereby  shall  be  sub- 


I  mitted  to  the  General  Convention  for  its  approval.  To 
this  they  desired  to  add  the  following  words:  "Nothing 
in  this  canon  shall  be  construed  as  forbidding  any  Fed- 
erate Council  from  taking  such  action  as  they  may  deem 
necessary  to  secure  such  legislative  enactments  as  the 
common  interests  of  the  Church  in  the  state  may  require." 

Which  report,  on  motion  of  Rev.  Dr.  Haight,  was  laid 
on  the  table. 

The  PiiESlDENT  : — The  Committee  on  Clerical  Su[)- 
port  have  placed  on  my  table  a  report,  and  the  gentle- 
man who  made  it  is  an.xious  to  present  it,  because  he 
expects  to  be  absent  after  to-day. 

Mr.  B.  Johnson  Barbouk,  of  Virginia: — I  beg  leave 
to  say  I  have  been  deputed  by  my  colleagues  of  this 
committee  to  present  this  report : — 

The  committee  to  which  was  refcixed  a  memorial  from 
the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  on  the  subject  of  clerical  support, 
beg  leave  respectfully  to  report  as  follows,  that  they  have 
given  the  subject  the  utmost  possible  attention  and  examin- 
ation with  the  result  indicated  in  the  following  report  and 
resolution : 

The  committee  yas  met  at  the  threshold  by  the  suggestion 
that  any  action  of  the  Convention  would  be  not  mandatory, 
but  only  advisory  in  its  character.  The  dioceses  differed  from 
each  other  not  less  in  their  circumstances  than  in   their 
latitude  and  longitude,  and  at  least  each  one  must  be  allow- 
ed to  select  from  a  multitude  of  suggestions  the  plan  which 
after  full  consideration  it  shall  decide  is  most  congenial  and 
appropriate  to  itself.     It  is  of  niiuor  importance  whether  the 
end  be  aconiplislied  by  forming  a  parochial  aid  system,  by 
a  fund  or  yearly  contributions  assessed  upon  jiarishes,  or 
by  the  arrangement  of  pew  rents,  or  weekly  or  monthly  con- 
tributions.    The  main  question  is  to  awaken  interest  and  to 
maintain  it.     It  will  be  useless  to  prepare  the  conduits  un- 
til we  know  that  the  fountain  has  been  struck.     It  is  unnec- 
essary to  compare  the  price  of  gold  until  we  have  tlic  gold. 
If  we  desire  more  earnest  prayers  and  to  have  uior  ■  indepen- 
dent clergy  we  must  relieve  tbcm  from  the  ban  ssi  ig  care.s  of 
insufficient  support,  and  from  tlie  constant  struggle  for  their 
daily  bread,  and  give  them  such  assurances  of  a  comfortable 
and  constant   maintenance  as  to  enable  tliem   to  turn  their 
undivided  eifort  to  the  great  work  before  tlieiii.     If  we  are 
not  content  to  witness  the  decrease  of  the  niinistiy  and  dry 
up  the  source  of  supply  we  nnist  arouse  ourselves  and  pre- 
pare for  a  comfortable  and  full  support  of  the  clergy.   It  is  not 
a  charity  but  a  duty ;  it  is  a  delit,  not  a  mere  benefaction. 
It  is  a  debt  which  we  owe  to  the  minister.*  of  the  Church,  to 
the  country,  and  to  God.     It  is  obvious   chough   tliat   the 
remedy   lies  with  the  laity  not  the  cleigy.     This  is  an  op- 
portunity in  which — while  the  laity  are  gathered  together — to 
force  facts  home  upon  them  and  remind  them  affectionately 
but' pointedly  of  their  culpable  delinquency  in  this  great  and 
high  <luty,  and  to  urge  them  in  the  name  of  humauitandy, 
of  tlic  Master  whom  they   profess  to  serve,  that  they  set 
themselves  steadily,  earnestly,  and  persistently  to  the  fulfil- 
nienl  of  their  duty  to   those  on  wliose  faitld'u!  prayers  rest 
tlieir  dearest  and  mightiest  interests.      In  eoiielusion,  and  as 
an  emI>odiment  of  our  reflections,  we  offer  the  following  res 
olutious; 


96 


Resolved,  That  the  House  of  Bishops  be  requested  to 
present  prominently,  in  a  pastoral  letter,  the  sufferings  and 
wants  of  the  clergy  of  the  Church  in  many  portions  of  the 
country,  and  the  vital  necessity  there  is  for  prompt  and  effi- 
cient reUef. 

Resolved,  That,  in  the  opinion  of  the  laity  of  this  House, 
it  is  a  solemn  and  urgent  duty  resting  upon  this  body  of  the 
lay  members  of  the  Church  to  make  systematic  and  c  nstaut 
efforts  for  the  better  maintenance  of  the  clergy,  and  whilst 
each  diocese  is,  of  course,  free  to  adopt  the  plan  best  suited 
to  its  own  condition  and  circumstances,  it  is  rec  mmended 
that,  after  due  notice,  a  collection  be  taken  up  in  every 
parish  on  one  or  more  of  the  festivals  of  the  Church,  annual- 
ly, one  portion  to  be  given  to  the  minister  of  the  parish 
and  the  remainder  sent  to  the  Treasurer  of  the  Do- 
mestic Committee  to  be  distributed  among  the  clergy  of  the 
Southern  missionary  dioceses. 

Mr.  B.  Johnson  Bakbour: — Mr.  President,  if  I  could  be 
permitted  to  say  a  few  words  I  should  be  glad  to  do  so,  if  I 
do  not  trespass  upon  the  patience  of  the  House  nor  upon  the 
time  of  the  corps  of  regular  speakers.  [Laughter.]  No 
one  is  responsible  for  my  thoughts;  therefore  I  shall  be  glad 
to  speak  them.  This  report,  or  rather  the  memorial  on 
which  it  is  founded,  speaks  of  thiugs  we  know  so  little  of  in 
the  part  of  the  country  from  which  I  come,  that  I  am  desir- 
■  ous  of  making  a  little  explanation.  It  speaks  of  stocks  and 
salaries  and  gold  and  silver  and  real  estale.  Well,  "gold 
and  silver  we  have  none,"  and  as  for  the  paper  currency, 
we  have  only  a  disturbed  vision  of  a  currency  that  rose  like 
an  exhalation,  covered  the  land  like  the  waters  of  the  sea, 
and  vanished  like  a  dream  in  the  night.  As  for  laud,  we 
have  so  much  land  that  we  cannot  sell  nor  even  work  it ;  we 
scarcely  call  laud  real  estate  in  our  country.  I  beg  leave  to 
repeat  in  substance  a  single  sentence  that  I  said  in  your  pi'es- 
ence  a  few  nights  since,  that  I  trust  I  am  too  well  aware  of  what 
is  due  to  the  sacredness  of  this  edifice  and  to  the  solemnity  of 
this  occasion,  and  too  well  aware  of  the  general  inutility  either 
in  Church  or  State  of  political  discussions,  to  make  any 
mere  political  allusions  to-night,  neither  would  I  invade  the 
grave  of  the  dead  past.  I  would  not  even  disturb  its  sur- 
face unless  it  were  to  plant  the  flowers  that  are  the  em- 
blems and  the  token  of  resignation  and  peace — a  resignation 
that  believes  that  God  speaks  to  His  children  alike  m  the 
whirlwind  of  war  and  in  the  gentle  influences  of  peace. 
But  it  is  necessary  for  me  to  allude  to  the  general  condition 
of  our  country  ;  and  my  statement  is  fortified  alike  by  the 
eloquent  words  we  heard  from  our  brother  from  Texas  and 
by  the  striking  remarks  included  in  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Christiairliducation  to-day.  It  is  not  so  much  a 
question,  ray  friends,  in  a  great  many  portions  of  the  South 
how  much  or  how  we  shall  pay  our  ministers ;  but  it  is  a 
question  whether  there  shall  be  any  parish  at  all.  Flocks 
and  shepherds  have  been  so  much  scattered  by  the  terrible 
events  of  the  last  few,  years  that  it  is  a  question  of  great 
solicitude  whether  they  will  ever  meet  on  earth  again ;  and 
the  only  memorials  of  scenes  where  once  happy  assemblies 
met  to  worship  Almighty  God  are  nothing  but  blackened  and 
ruined  walls.  And  I  believe  if  those  scenes  were  presented 
to  you,  not  by  poor  words  of  mine,  but  in  their  reality, 
they  would  touch  your  heart.  As  1  was  walking  in  the 
principal  artery  of  this  great  metropolis  to-day,  my  atten- 
tion was  struck  at  the  entrance  of  a  photograph  gallery  by 
a  splendid  reproduction  of  the  Coliseum  at  Rome.  Strange 
enough,  two  hours  afterwards  when  talking  with  a  friend  he 


drew  from  his  pocket  a  small  picture  not  larger  than  th 
palm  of  the  hand.  It  was  the  photograph  of  the  eloquent 
ruins  of  his  own  church ;  and  it  was  far  more  eloquent  than 
the  Coliseum.  One,  to  be  sure,  had  clustered  around  it  the 
associations  of  fifty  generations  ;  but  the  other  spoke  of  our 
own  mixeries.  One  is  pagan,  but  the  other,  even  in  its  ruins, 
spoke  of  the  countless  ages  of  eternity  ;  and  I  believe  that 
nothing  more  eloquent  could  be  shown  to  these  northern 
and  western  friends  of  ours  than  a  grand  diorama  of  all  such 
ruins  in  our  country.  I  remember  when  the  celebrated  Dr. 
Duff  came  from  Scotland,  some  twenty  years  ago,  in  the  in- 
terests of  the  free  church  in  Scotland,  and  made  his  magnif- 
icent speech.  He  said  only  one  thousand  dollars  was  re- 
quired to  erect  one  of  the  humble  mansions  they  needed. 
"Then"  said  a  large-hearted  merchant,  "I  will  build  twenty 
of  them,"  and  sent  in  his  check.  Would  it  not  be  far  more 
noble  to  re-erect  these  ruined  churches  in  your  own  coun- 
try ?  Do  you  not  believe  with  me  that  they  would  be  the 
best  temples  of  reconstruction,  better  than  all  those  acts 
with  which  the  wisest  and  best  men  could  crowd  the  stat- 
ute-book V  If  you  believe  with  me  that  our  noble  Church  is 
destined  to  arouse  from  her  lethargy,  if  you  believe  with  me 
that  she  is  adequate  to  restore  the  functions  of  the  great 
American  heart,  to  give  it  a  grander,  a  fuller,  a  healthier 
pulse,  to  ;cnd  its  tides  to  the  remotest  portion  of  our  earth 
and  give  to  the  whole  body  politic  health,  beauty,  and 
strength,  if  you  have  heard,  as  set  forth  by  the  report  to- 
day, the  amount  of  destitution  in  the  South,  recollect  the 
greater  spiritual  destitution.  If  you  would  hear,  as  X  do, 
the  voice  that  speaks  from  the  tomb  of  many  a  dead  empire 
and  of  every  past  republic,  if  you  would  lift  up  your  lone 
sister  of  the  South,  if  you  would  make  her  believe  that  her 
griefs  may  be  sanctified  to  her  everlasting  good,  if  you 
would  teach  her  that  she  could  wear  them  not  as  a  crown  of 
thorns  but  as  a  golden  sorrow — if  you  would  do  this — 
and  place  this  gift  upon  her  brow  like  a  coronet,  she  would 
rise  up  and  look  to  you  with  a  look  of  startled  joy,  as 
though  Rachel's  children  still  lived.  If  I  have  said  too 
much  on  this  subject,  pardon  me,  for  I  speak  in  the  name 
of  that  country  that  we  should  all  love  and  of  that  God  we 
should  all  adore.  Remember !  oh,  remember !  that  in  the 
great  earthly  trinity, — Faith,  Hope,  and  Charity, — that  the 
greatest  of  these  is  Charity.     [Applause.] 

Rev.  Dr.  Stubbs — thanked  the  gentleman,  in  behalf  of 
the  Convention,  for  his  eloquent,  able,  and  patriotic 
speech. 

Dr.  ( I.  C.  SnATTucK,of  Massachusetts, — thought  it  was 
impossible  for  this  Convention  to  fix  the  different  pro- 
portions of  the  collection  [suggested  by  the  report]  which 
should  be  given  to  the  clergyman  of  the  parish,  and  to 
'  the  other  purposes  mentioned  in  the  report. 

Rev.  Dr.  Rylance,  of  Illinois : — Am  I  to  have  a  col- 
lection made  in  my  parish  ?  I  understand  we  are  to 
do  so,  in  accordance  with  instructions  from  the  Bishop. 

The  Pkesident: — One  of  the  resolutions  is  for  the 
Bishop  to  issue  a  pastoral  letter,  and  the  other  a  recom- 
mendation from  this  House  that  collections  be  taken 
up  once  in  a  year,  and  one  portion  of  them  to  go  to  the 
minister  of  the  parish. 

Rev.  Dr.  Rylance  : — I  do  not  need  it,  [Laughter]  and 


97 


think  that  five  hundred  other  clergymen  do  not ;  it  is 
indelicate. 

Dr.  G.  C.  Shattuck  : — Some  do  need  it ;  and  those 
that  do  not  need  it  can  give  it  to  other  parishes  that 
do. 

Rev.  Dr.  Rylance  : — I  am  not  opposing  that ;  but, 
then,  there  should  be  some  indications  that  the  collec- 
tions should  be  in  those  parishes  only  where  want  is 
known  to  e.xist. 

Dr.  Howe  : — I  hope  it  will  not  be  left  to  the  rector  to 
determine  whether  it  is  needed  or  not ;  it  may  be  an 
awkward  thing  to  ask  it,  and  yet  he  may  feel  conscious 
that  he  needs  it,  and  his  people  may  think  that  he  does 
not  need  it.  I  heard  of  a  clergyman  at  a  rural  place 
who  received  a  small  salary  of  $2.50  a  year.  Persons 
who,  in  the  summer,  resort  to  that  place,  are  in  the 
habit  ol  makmg  up  a  purse  for  him,  which,  on  the  last 
occasion,  was  considerable  in  amount.  When  his  peo- 
ple found  that  that  was  done,  they  determined  that  he 
did  not  need  the  $250.  [Laughter.]  Often  the  impres- 
sion is  that  the  minister  is  in  affluent  circumstances, 
when  he  knows  he  is  not.  It  will  put  him  into  a  painful 
situation  to  determine  how  large  a  part  of  the  collection 
he  shall  appropriate  to  his  own  use. 

Rev.  Dr.  Stdbbs  : — As  little  as  we  can  do  is  to  give 
the  whole. 

Rev.  Dr.  Rylance  : — It  will  be  an  indelicate  thing  for 
the  clergyman  to  take  the  collection  himself.  It  will 
be  the  inception  of  an  improper  thing.  I  want  no  such 
help  brought  out  of  my  parish.     I  would  not  need  it. 

Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin  : — Is  that  collection  to  be  taken 
up  also  in  the  Southern  dioceses  and  then  sent  to  the 
committee  to  be  distributed  back  to  them  ? 

Rev.  Mr.  Breck  : — It  does  appear  to  me  there  ought  to  have 
been  one  or  two  clergymen  on  the  committee,  in  consider- 
ing this  subject.  This  matter  of  clerical  support  has  been, 
I  suppose,  the  study  of  many  gentlemen  in  this  House  for 
a  great  many  years ;  and  it  has  been  one  of  those  studies 
that  have  been  utterly  incomprehensible  to  the  minds  of 
many.  I  have  had  to  do  with  some  of  the  most  generous 
and  liberal  men  in  the  Church,  who  give  by  hundreds  and 
by  thousands,  but  who  never  seemed  to  take  in  this  subject 
in  any  true  or  proper  way,  and  I  have  been  waiting  for  tliis 
report,  hoping  that  these  gentlemen  would  bring  something 
out  that  would  be  practicable.  We  have  had  all  these 
things  before.  We  have  had  Bishops  sending  letters  and 
circulars,  and  yet  they  have  not  reached  the  difficulty.  And 
there  is  nothing  in  this  report  that  reaches  the  root  of  the 
evil,  at  all.  You  may  support  a  clergyman,  and  give  him  a 
salary  and  these  collections,  but  I  wish  to  know  what  is  to 
become  of  the  famUy  of  the  clergyman,  and  whether  there 
is  anything  to  reach  their  case,  if  he  is  removed  by  death? 
I  say  that  after  the  death  of  the  clergyman  his  family  is 
presently  forgotten  by  the  Church ;  and  I  know  a  large 
number  of  ladies  who  have  thus  been  forgotten.  When  I 
was  a  young  man,  after  I  had  been  ten  years  in  a  parish 
and  was  about  to  leave  it,  I  threw  out  this  subject  in  a  deh- 
cate  way ;  not  in  a  way  that  could  be  made  personally  ap- 
pUcable,  at  all.     I  went  into   the  new  section  of  Northern 

13 


Pennsylvania.  There  went  into  that  country,  at  the  same 
time,  lawyers  and  merchants,  all  of  us  very  nmch  of  the 
same  age  and  condition.  We  Hved  together  for  ten  years. 
Those  business  men  went  on  accumulating  pro])erty — 
houses  and  lauds — property  of  all  kmds.  I  suggested  to 
them  whether  it  would  uot  be  just,  if,  at  the  end  of  ten 
years,  they  should  combine,  and  devote  a  certain  portion  of 
their  property  to  the  support  of  tlie  families  of  clergymen; 
that  they  should  put  it  together  into  a  sum,  whatever  they 
were  able  to  give,  according  to  their  means  and  prosperity, 
whether  it  were  five  hundred  or  a  tliowsand  dollars ;  and, 
after  that,  let  it  be  devoted  to  the  support  of  the  families  of 
clergymen  who  had  ministered  so  many  years  in  their 
midst.  It  has  always  seemed  to  me  that  if  something  of 
this  kind  could  be  done,  it  would  be  the  most  practical  way 
of  reaching  tliis  terrible  evil.  There  is  another  point,  and 
yet  it  is  a  very  dehcate  one  for  the  clergy  to  touch,  and  it  is, 
that  the  families  of  clergymen  might  be  remembered  in  the 
wills  of  members  of  the  Church.  I  do  not  beheve  that  one 
will  out  of  one  hundred  of  the  members  of  the  Church,  wlio 
are  able  to  contribute  sometliing  towards  the  support  of 
the  minister's  family  that  had  been  among  them  for  ten 
or  twenty  years,  gives  them  a  dollar.  There  arc  these  two 
points  that  seem  to  me  practical  ways  of  accomplishing  this 
thing ;  and  they  are  those  two  points  that  have  presented 
themselves  to  my  mind,  in  reflecting  upon  this  matter,  dur- 
ing a  series  of  years. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mahan  : — I  am  very  much  afraid,  in  connection 
with  this  discussion,  that  there  will  be  a  certain  amount  of 
what  I  call  waste  of  soul.  I  am  very  much  afraid  that  this 
will  result  in  one  of  those  wastes  of  soul  which  so  often  oc- 
cur in  cases  of  this  kind,  when  a  man  is  inspired  by  God's 
Spirit  to  pour  out  his  soul  before  us,  and  it  leads  to  nothing 
but  mere  talk  and  resolution.  And,  though  I  am  unpre- 
pared to  make  anything  that  might  be  a  wise  suggestion  on 
this  sul)ject,  I  would  propose,  substantially,  this  :  that  this 
Convention  should  not  separate  without  appointing  some 
committee,  or  somebody,  to  ascertain  something  with  regard 
to  that  terrible  destitution  of  the  Church  of  God  in  the 
Southern  States,  and  to  recommend  some  plan  by  which  we 
may  avert  the  wrath  of  God  that  will  certainly  come  upon 
us  if  we  do  not  provide  for  that  destitution.  I  propose 
that  this  feeling  should  not  pass  away  from  us  as  a  mere 
empty  sound.  We  have  listened  to  eloquent  words,  that 
every  member  in  this  Convention  felt,  in  his  heart,  to  be  truly 
words  from  God.  Let  this  lead  to  something  ;  let  there  be 
something  springing  from  this  occasion,  and  let  it  go  forth 
as  the  voice  and  the  act  of  this  Convention.  There  are  va- 
rious things  that  may  be  done.  There  are  members  of  this 
Convention,  more  practical  than  I  am,  who  may  suggest 
something ;  but,  if  nothing  more  than  this,  it  would  be 
something,  namely,  that  we  should  here  contribute,  upon 
this  spot,  at  least  the  begmning  of  a  fund  towards  this 
great  purpose.  If  we  merely  pass  resolutions,  recommend- 
ing that  some  day  or  other  there  should  he  funds,  they  will 
amount  to  comparatively  nothing,  unless  the  eftbrt  be  made 
to  give  a  distinct  impulse.  I  would  recommend  that  the 
thing  should  be  more  thoroughly  considered,  and  that 
something,  if  possible,  should  be  done  on  the  spot.        ^ 

Rev.  Dr.  Howe  moved  that  the  sulject  be  referred  back 
again  to   the  Committee  for  furtherjpractical  s  uggestious 


98 


and  that  two  clerical  members  be  added  to  the  committee. 
Agreed  to. 

The  additional  members  of  the  committee  were  Rev.  Dr. 
Mahan  and  Rev.  Chas.  Breck. 

Message,  number  25,  from  the  House  of  Bishops,  concur- 
ring in  the  action  of  this  House,  fixing  the  next  meeting  of 
the  Convention  at  Baltimore. 

Message  number  26,  from  the  House  of  Bishops,  announc- 
ed their  con-concurrence  in  amendments,  Nos.  2,  3,  4,  to 
article  5,  of  the  Constitution  adopted  by  the  House  of  Dep- 
uties. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mdlohahet,  of  Massachusetts,  submitted  a  re- 
port from  the  Special  Committee  on  Federate  Councils  and 
the  Provincial  System,  which  opposed  the  introduction  of 
the  latter  as  unsuited  to  our  times  and  country ;  but  favor- 
ed Federate  Councils  where  there  is  more  than  one  diocese 
in  a  State,  and  proposed  uew  canons  relating  to  them. 

Thev.  Dr.  Mulchahet  moved  that  the  proposed  canons  be 
printed  and  made  the  order  of  the  day  for  Friday,  at  12 
o'clock. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin  moved  that  they  be  referred  to 
the  Committee  on  Canons  before  printing. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Mulchahet  : — I  withdraw  the  motion  to 
print,  and  move  that  they  be  the  order  of  the  day  for  Fri- 
day. 

Hon.  S.  B.  RuGGLES: — I  rise  to  move  that  when  this 
great  propositiou  with  reference  to  the  re-arrangement  of 
our  Church,  making  an  arrangement  which  in  my  honest 
judgment,  will  lead  to  its  dismemberment  and  ruin,  in  which 
the  life  of  the  Church  is  concerned  and  the  authority  of 
tliis  General  Convention, — a  question  of  life  or  death, — we 
shall  have  an  opportunity  of  being  heard  in  defence  of  our 
common  niotlier,  that  we  shall  not  be  confined  to  the  nar- 
row limits  of  debate  established  the  other  day  ;  for  I  aver, 
after  a  consultation  with  experienced  gentlemen,  that  this 
subject  presents  at  least  ten  specific  points  in  reality,  each 
of  which  would  properly  require  the  whole  of  the  ten  min- 
utes now  given  by  the  rule.  I  should  hardly  expect  to  give 
ten  minutes  to  this  point,  if  I  had  the  opportunity  ;  but  1 
shall  move  that  three  minutes  shall  be  given  to  each  point 
by  each  speaker,  and  I  propose  to  .submit  those  ten  points, 
that  we  may  have  them  in  t&is  debate.  I  therefore  propose 
them  in  order  to  condense  as  far  as  possible,  and  to  avoid 
repetition ;  and  although  I  do  not  flatter  myself  that  I  have 
embraced  all  the  points,  I  will  ask  leave  to  read  the  ten 
propositions  which  must  be  discussed. 

The  President  : — There  are  two  motions  before  the  House, 
one  to  make  the  following  resolution  the  order  of  the  day  for 
Friday  : 

Resolved,  That  it  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Canons 
to  report  whether  it  is  expedient  to  determine  whether  it 
should  be  compulsory  or  voluntary  on  the  part  of  the  differ- 
ent dioceses  within  the  bounds  of  a  certain  State,  to  unite  in 
the  formation  of  these  provinces  spoken  of. 

The  motion  to  make  the  report  of  the  special  committee  the 
order  of  the  day  for  12  o'clock,  on  Friday,  has  been  super- 
seded by  the  motion  to  commit.  The  motion  to  re-commit 
was  lost.  The  question  then  recurred  upon  the  motion  to 
print  the  canons  reported  by  the  Special  Committee  and 
to  Aake  them  the  order  of  the  day  for  Friday  next,  which 
motion  was  agreed  to. 


Hon.  S.  B.  RcGGLES : — I  merely  wish  to  get  these  ten 
points  before  the  House.  I  merely  say  to  the  House  that 
these  ten  propositions  may  or  may  not  be  true.  One  thing 
I  will  say,  they  are  all  pertinent  to  the  case ;  and  they  are 
offered  merely  to  avoid  repetition  and  secure  condensation, 
and  something  like  consecutive  order  in  this  debate.  Oth- 
ers might  be  added,  and  the  order  might  be  improved.  I 
will  read  them,  coupling  them  with  a  motion  which  makes 
it  proper  that  any  member  may  speak  three  minutes  on  each 
proposition : 

Resolved,  That  the  resolution  of  this  House  as  adopted 
on  the  16th  in.st.,  limiting  the  speech  of  any  member  on 
any  subject  to  ten  minutes,  be  so  far  modified,  in  respectto 
debate  on  the  provincial  system,  as  to  permit  any  member 
to  occupy  three  minutes  in  discussing  each  of  the  following 
propositions : 

1.  The  unity  and  unexampled  prosperity  now  enjoyed  by 
the  Church  in  these  happily  United  States,  is  mainly  to  be 
attributed  to  its  simple  but  efficient  organism  under  one  su- 
preme authority  in  the  General  Convention,  restrained 
only  by  the  ecclesiastical  Constitution  established  by  the  piety 
and  forecast  of  our  fathers. 

2.  No  fundamental  change  should  be  made  in  that  organ- 
ism without  the  clearest  evidence  of  urgent  necessity,  and 
then,  only  in  the  Constitutional  mode,  by  carefully  consid- 
ered Amendments  to  the  Constitution  to  be  submitted  to 
the  clergy  and  the  laity  in  each  of  the  dioceses,  for  their 
due  consideration. 

.3.  In  framing,  altering  or  enlarging  the  organism  of  the 
Apostolic  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  as  one 
great  Province  of  the  Church  Catholic,  there  was  not  and 
is  not  any  Scriptural  or  other  necessity  for  adopting  or  im- 
itating any  example  of  local  organism  in  any  other 
country  or  age,  whether  in  the  ancient  Roman  Empire  or 
any  of  the  monarchies  of  modern  Europe  ;  and  that  all 
such  local  ecclesiastical  structures  should  be  subject  to  va 
riation  with  the  necessary  changes  of  time  and  place. 

4.  No  evidence  has  yet  been  furnished  by  experience  of 
any  action  or  want  of  action  by  the  General  Convention, 
which  requires  any  large  surrender  or  delegation  of  its  pow- 
ers to  dioceses  or  local  groups  of  dioceses,  representing  only 
separate  sections  of  the  Church. 

5.  Any  such  surrender,  according  to  all  human  experience, 
must  eventually  and  inevitably  operate  to  undermine  and 
overthrow  the  paramount  authority  of  the  General  Conven- 
tion necessary  for  preserving  the  unity  of  the  Church. 

6.  In  view  of  the  great  continental  extent  of  the  Church, 
requiring  personal  knowledge  of  its  wide-spread  sections  and 
subdivisions,  the  present  House  of  Bishops  of  equal  dignity 
and  authority,  is  not  too  numerous,  but  may  be  gradually 
increased  in  number,  with  advantage  to  the  Church. 

7.  If  the  House  of  clerical  and  lay  deputies  has  now  be- 
come too  numerous  for  convenient  and  efficient  action,  the 
evil  may  be  remedied  at  once,  and  without  any  fundamen- 
tal change  in  our  ecclesiastical  structure,  simply  by  reduc- 
ing the  ratio  ofrepresentationof  the  dioceses,  to  keep  pace 
with  their  increase  in  number. 

S.  Any  institution  of  Provinces,  or  Sub-Provinces,  or 
Provincial  Synods,  with  power  liable  at  all  times  to  revoca- 
tion by  the  General  Convention,  will  be  useless  and  illuso- 
ry, and  no  such   intermediate  body  can   usefully  exercise 


99 


any  power  already  enjoyed   by  each  of  the  Diocesan^Con- 
ventions. 

9.  Such  ProTincial  Synods,  if  invested  with  irrevocable 
powers,  and  withdrawn  from  the  constant  and  watchful  su- 
pervision of  the  General  Convention,  may  soon  diverge  into 
widely  differing  habits  and  opinions,  and  become  antagonist 
organs  of  ecclesiastical  conflict,  eventually  leading  to  the 
dismemberment  of  the  Church,  and  especially  destroying 
the  solid  and  unbroken  front  which  it  should  present  in  the 
General  Council,  ere  long  to  assemble  under  the  great  Prov. 
idence  of  God,  in  the  hope  of  re-uniting  the  Church  of 
Christ  on  earth. 

10.  Such  division  of  the  Church  into  Sections  or  Prov- 
inces will  work  at  once  great  injury,  in  rendering  less  fre- 
quent the  present  triennial  meetings  of  the  Bishops  and  the 
representatives  of  the  clergy  and  the  laity  iu  General  Con- 
vention ;  in  which  assemblies,  the  eflbrts  of  all  to  advance 
the  highest  interests  of  the  Church  are  animated  and  ele- 
vated, and  where  by  intimate  and  fraternal  intercourse,  all 
become  acquainted  with  the  feehngs  and  necessities  of  each, 
thereby  uniting  our  now  undivided  Church  in  one  common 
bond  of  Christian  sympathy  and  affection. 

Rev.  Dr.  Uaight: — The  diocese  which  I  have  the  honor 
to  represent  in  part,  has  presented  a  memorial  to  this  House 
asking  for  the  passage  of  a  canon  in  regard  to  Federate  Coun- 
cils. The  same  step  has  been  taken  by  the  Diocese  of 
Western  New  York,  and  by  the  Diocese  of  Maryland,  and 
substantially  by  the  Diocese  of  Pennsylvania.  I  am  here 
on  the  part  of  the  Diocese  of  New  York  to  urge  it  as  I  best 
can.  I  hope  I  shall  be  sustained  by  the  rest  of  my  col- 
leagues, since  my  brother  has  taken  the  position  he  has.  If 
understand  the  propositions  aright,  they  make  directly 
and  positively  against  that  most  important  measure  which 
the  Diocese  of  New  York  has  for  the  second  time  introduc- 
ed to  the  attention  of  the  House.  I  am  not  willing  to  sit 
here  and  hear  that  resolution  brought  in  in  the  teeth  of 
the  memorial  from  this  diocese,  without  giving  some  indica- 
tion that  we  do  not  sympathise  with  the  propositions.  I 
move  to  postpone  them  indefinitely. 

Rev.  Dr.  Hare: — I  think  the  reverend  gentleman  from 
New  York  is  mistaken  in  the  impression  that  the  Diocese 
of  Pennsylvania  recommended  the  provincial  system. 

Dr.  Uaight: — They  did  ask  for  a  canon  to  allow  them- 
selves to  associate  together  for  a  purpose  of  common  inter- 
est so  far  as  the  State  is  concerned. 

Hon.  S.  B.  RuGGLES  : — I  wish  to  exculpate  myself  from 
the  charge  made  against  me  by  my  reverend  colleague. 
The  memorial  did  not  recommend  the  provincial  system.  It 
was  a  provincial  synod  in  disguise  which  I  opposed  in  the 
Convention.  And  iu  the  vote  of  the  Convention  it  was 
stricken  out  on   my  motion. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haigiit  : — I  beg  to  correct  the  gentleman  ;  it  was 
not  voted  upon  by  the  Convention;  it  was  withdrawn  by  the 
committee  who  introduced  it. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Ruggles,  his  resolution  was  laid  upon 
the  table. 

On  motion,  a  resolution  was  adopted  transmitting  to  the 
House  of  Bishops  the  testimonials  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Morris, 
Bishop  elect  of  Oregon  and  the  Territory  of  Washington. 

The  House  then  adjourned  to  10  o'clock. 


FOURTEENTH  DAY's  PROCEEDINGS. 

Thdrsdat,  October  22,  1868. 
The   House  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Morning    Prayer  was  said   by   Rev.  Dr.  Rylance,   of  Illi- 
nois, and  Rev.  Dr.  Cooke  of  New  York. 

The  Benediction  was  pronounced  by  Bishop  Clarkson  of 
Nebraska. 

The  minutes  of  yesterday  were  read  and  approved. 
Rev.   Dr.  Wheat  oflfei'ed   a   resolution    referred  to   the 
Committee  on  the  Prayer  Book,  to  consider  the  propriety 
of  preparing  a  table  of  Lessons  of  Daily  Prayer  during  the 
season  of  Lent. 

Ou  motion  of  Rev.  Dr.  Shelton,  the  report  of  the  Board 
of  Trustees  of  the  General  Theological  Semin.ary  was  read. 
Rev.  Dr.   Mahan,  from  the  Committee  on  Canons,  report- 
ed back  the  canon  on  ministers  officiating,  amending  sections 
1  and  2,  so  as  to  read,  "  no  minister  in  charge  of  any  con- 
gregation of  this  Church,  or  in  the  case  of  vacancy  or  ab- 
sence, no  Church  Warden,  Vestryman  or  Trustees  of  a  con- 
gregation   shall  permit  any  person  to   officiate  therein  with- 
out sufficient  evidence  of  his  beiug  duly  licensed  or  ordain- 
ed to  minister  in  this  Church.    Canon  XI,  Title  1,  section  1, 
and  2,  are  hereby  repealed,  provided  that  such  repeal  shall 
not  affect  any  case  of  violation  of  said  canon  committed  be- 
fore this  date,  but  such  case  shall  be  governed  by  the  .same 
law  as  if  no  such  repeal  had  taken  place."   I  would  explain  the 
changes  that  have  been  made  in  conformity  with  the  various 
requests  and  suggestions  received :  the  first  of  which  has  been 
in  the  title  of  the  canon  which  was  somewhat  indefinite.  The 
title  as  at   present   is,    "  Of  persons  not  ministers  officiat- 
ing ;  but  in  order  that  the   title    might  conform  to  what  is 
iu  the  canon  itself,  and   might   not   by  any  jjossibility  be 
distorted  for  controversial  purposes  or  otherwise,  we  sug- 
gest the    more  definite   phrase,   "  Of  persons  not  ministers 
of  this  Church  officiating  in  any  congregation  thereof."  The 
next  change  by  which  the  two  present  sections    have  been 
merged  into  one,  is  suggested  simply  by  the  possibility  that 
the  responsibility  is  not  definitely  fixed   iu  the  present  can- 
on.    According  to  our  former  report,  we  regard  the  mean- 
ing of  the  canon  as   clear   enough.     It  simply  amounts  in 
our  judgment  to  this,  no  person  shall  officiate  in  this  Church, 
unless  he  has  some   sort  of  Ucense  or   authority  so  to  do. 
That  is   the  meaning  of  the  canon  in  our   idea  ;  but  as  it 
reads  at  present,   "  no    person   shall   be    permitted," — the 
responsibility  of  permission,  does  not  seem  to  be  sufficiently 
fixed  ;  therefore,  in  order  that  the  responsibility  may  rest 
upon  the  person  who   is  reaUy  in  charge  of  the  congrega- 
tion, we  simply  reverse  the  order  of  the  words  so  as  to  read, 
instead  of  "  no  person  shall  be  permitted,"  "  no  minister  in 
charge,"  and  so  on,    "shall   permit  any  person  to  officiate 
therein  without  sufficient  evidence  of  his  being  duly  licen 
sed  or   ordained  to    minister  in    this   Church."     This  last 
phrase  "  being  duly  licensed  or  ordained,"  is  meant  to  meet 
another  difficulty  suggested   by   the  original  memorialists, 
namely  :  It  was  supposed  that  the   case  of  lay  readers  was 
not  at  all  provided  for.     Their  case  is  undoubtedly  provided 
for  in  the  canons,  but  that  it  may  be  sufficiently  covered  we 
have  substituted  the  words,  "  without  sufficient  evidence  of 
his  being    duly  hcensed    or   ordained    to  minister   in  •this 
Church,"    which,    of  course    corresponds    with  the  canon. 


100 


Then  the  last  proviso  is  put  iu  iu  couformity  with  what  is 
required  in  the  digest  of  the  canons,  where,  in  repealing  any 
canon,  this  proviso  is  provided  for,  namely,  Canon  "11,  Title 
&c,  is  hereby  repealed,  provided  such  repeal  shall  not  affect 
any  case  of  violation  of  said  canon  committed  before  this 
day,  but  such  case  shall  be  governed  by  the  same  law  as  if 
no  such  repeal  had  taken  place."  That  I  believe  is  a  matter 
understood  anyhow,  but  our  digest  provides  some  such 
caveat  to  be  put  in  upon  the  repeal  of  the  canon. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mahan — then  moved  that  this  canon,  as  thus 
amended,  be  adopted  in  the  place  of  the  present  canon. 
No.  11. 

Rev.  C.  P.  Gadsden  : — There  are  very  many  portions  of 
our  dioceses,  in  the  present  condition  of  affairs,  where,  un- 
less such  occasional  service  were  allowed  to  be  performed 
by  laymen,  our  people  would  be  entirely  without  worship. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mahan  : — My  impression  is  that  this  proposed 
amendment  would  not  prohibit  a  layman  from  officiating  in 
such  cases ;  but  it  seems  to  provide  for  all  such  cases :  in 
shifting  the  respousibihty  upon  the  minister  in  charge,  those 
extreme  and  extraordinary  cases  seem  to  be  sufficiently 
provided  for. 

Mr. : — What  does  the  chairman  of  the 

committee  understand  by  the  word  "  officiate,"  in  that  can- 
on ?  I  think  it  is  very  necessary  that  we  should  have  an 
understanding  of  it.  If  the  word  officiate  means  simply 
claiming  the  position  of  a  minister  of  this  Church  or  any 
other  Church,  then  it  does  not  cover  the  ground  suggested 
by  my  brother  from  South  Carolina.  If  it  means  perform- 
ing any  service,  under  any  and  all  circumstances,  by  any 
person,  then  it  covers  the  whole  ground ;  and  no  matter 
who  the  layman  may  be,  or  what  he  may  be,  he  has  no  right 
to  perform  any  service  in  this  Church,  according  to  that 
canon. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mahan  : — I  am  not  at  all  certain  that  an  explan- 
ation, by  the  chairman  of  the  Committee,  would  be  any 
authority  ;  I  can  only  give  ray  own  opinion.  By  officiating, 
I  would  understand,  a  person  performing  some  duty  as 
though  he  were  the  proper  officer  to  perform  it.  I  would 
not  understand  by  officiating,  the  case  of  a  person  merely 
acting  for  another  in  a  certain  capacity,  as  where  the  cler- 
gyman breaks  down  iu  the  middle  of  a' service,  his  voice 
fails  him,  and  he  asks  some  layman  to  go  on  reading  ser- 
vice :  that,  I  would  not  consider  officiating.  I  suppose,  by 
officiating,  we  mean  the  performance  of  some  office  by  a 
person  to  whom  it  is  ordinarily  committed.  But  I  do  not 
pretend  to  be  any  authority.  It  would  have  to  be  deter- 
mined by  a  court. 

The  report  of  the  committee  giving  rise  to  debate,  under 
the  rules,  it  was  laid  upon  the  table. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight  reported  from  tlie  Committee  on  Can- 
ons, in  reference  to  the  amendment  of  Canon  12,  on  Cleri- 
cal Intrusion.  The  committee  unanimously  reported  the 
following  resolution  for  adoption,  amending  the  canon  by 
the  addition  of  the  following  words:  "  Nothing  in  this  can- 
on shall  be  understood  to  forbid  a  minister  of  this  Church 
from  discharging  all  his  duties  as  such  iu  respect  to  mem- 
bers of  his  own  parish  who  may  be  within  the  parochial 
limits  of  another  minister,  except  the  duties  of  preaching 
and  reading  prayers  in  a  public  congregation." 


A  motion  was  made  to  lay  the  reported  resolution  on  the 
table. 

Rev  Dr.  Haight: — What  is  the  object  of  that? 

Rev.  Mr.  Lacet  : — The  effect  of  that,  as  I  understand  it  to 
be,  is  that  the  canon  will  remain  as  it  is,  rather  than  adopt 
that  amendment. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight  : — Under  the  order  of  the  House,  if  no 
motion  is  made  to  take  it  up,  it  remains  upon  the  table,  and 
can  be  called  up. 

The  motion  to  lay  upon  the  table  was  then  withdrawn. 

A  motion  was  then  made  to  indefinitely  postpone. 

The  President: — That  motion  is  debatable,  but  the  or- 
der of  the  day  has  arrived. 

Rev.  Dr.  Rylance — moved  that  the  order  of  the  day  be 
postponed  until  some  disposition  be  made  of  the  report  of 
the  committee ;  which  motion  was  amended  by  postponing 
the  order  of  the  day  until  2  o'clock.     Agreed  to. 

[On  motion,  a  Committee  of  Conference  was  appointed  on 
the  part  of  the  House,  to  confer  with  a  corresponding  com- 
mittee on  the  part  of  the  House  of  Bishops  upon  the  subject 
of  (the  amendment  of  the  fifth  article  of  the  constitution.] 

Rev.  Dr.  Rylance: — I  understand  the  motion  for  an  in- 
definite postponement  is  before  us.  I  hope  that  this  House 
is  prepared  to  pass  the  amendment.  It  simply  brings  the 
letter  of  the  law  into  harmony  with  the  recognized  action  of 
the  clergy  of  the  Church.  It  saves  us  from  the  possibility 
of  conflict  between  the  letter  and  practice.  We  all  of  us 
know,  by  experience,  that  we  are  doing  this  now  by  suffer- 
ance. Let  us  do  it  by  full  and  honest  recognition  of  the 
right  conferred  upon  us,  or  acknowledged  by  this  House, 
and  no  trouble  will  come  out  of  it.  I  believe  it  will  concil- 
iate much  of  the  divided  feeling  upon  this  subject.  In  my 
opinion,  it  will  be  simply  doing  that  which  common  sense 
and  common  honesty  require.  If  we  look  upon  it  in  this 
light,  I  believe  we  are  prepared  to  vote  upon  it  now. 

Rev.  Mr.  Gray,  of  Tennessee  :  It  does  seem  to  me  that 
this  is  a  very  important  amendment  to  consider,  and  one,  if 
I  understand  it  right,  which  I  am  not  prepared  to  vote  for 
at  all.  If  I  understand  it  right,  a  minister  of  another  par- 
ish may  come  into  my  parish  and  may  baptize  in  a  private 
house,  and  he  may  perform  the  marriage  ceremony  there, 
for  those  whom  he  claiiiis  as  his  parishioners.  They  may 
be,  ordinarily,  but  if  they  are  in  my  parish  for  a  large  por- 
tion of  the  year,  they  are  my  parishioners.  Yet  he  claims 
them  as  his  parishioners,  and  follows  them  into  my  parish, 
and  then  baptizes,  and  peribrins  other  ministerial  rites,  and 
I  have  no  right,  at  all,  to  interpose.  Therefore  I  am  utterly 
opposed  to  this  amendment,  and  I  hope  the  subject  will  be 
indefinitely  postponed,  or  disposed  of  in  some  other  way. 

Mr. inquired  where  baptisms,  marriages  etc., 

would  be  recorded  when  performed  by  a  rector  within  the 
limits  of  another  parish? 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight  said  that  in  case  they  were  performed 
for  his  own  parishioners  he  would  record  them  in  the  pariah 
to  which  he  belonged. 

Mr. •: — -We  have  been  told  that  no  difficulty  can 

arise  under  this  canon  with  the  exercise  of  proper  courtesy. 
But  this  is  a  practical  question.  There  are  occasions  con- 
tinually arising  when  it  will  not  be  in  the  power  of  the  cler- 
gyman sent  for  to  obtain  the  consent  of  the  brother  clergy- 
man of  the  parish.     It  often  happens  that  the  clergyman  of 


!01 


the  parish  is  absent,  and  in  such  cases  as  this,  under  this 
canon,  the  person  wishing  to  perform  the  service  will  lalJor 
under  considerable  embarrassment  as  to  what  course  to 
pursue.  This  proposed  iimendmeut  designs  simply  to  save 
him  from  this  embarrassment,  and  confer  upon  him,  legally, 
the  power  to  do  that  which  he  has  now  simply  the  right  to 
do,  by  courtesy.  For  these  reasons,  I  shall  vote  for  the 
amendment. 

A  Dkpoty  inquired  whether  an  amendment  was  in  order ; 
but  the  President  held  that  an  amendment  was  not  in  ordei- 
upon  a  motion  of  indefinite  postponement. 

Mr. : — I  have  no  objection  to  the  report  of  the 

committee  as  it  stands  substantially.  I  think  it  will  remove 
some  important  objections  in  the  minds  of  many  members 
of  this  Convention,  if  it  were  freed  from  the  implication 
that  it  may  be  the  duty  of  a  minister  or  clergyman  to  preach 
or  read  prayers  in  the  service  he  is  performing.  It  says, 
"except  the  duties  of  preaching  or  reading  prayers."  I 
think  if  these  words  are  stricken  out,  it  will  leave  it  in  a  bet- 
ter shape. 

Mr.  George  S.  Lacey,  of  Louisiana  : — If  these  words  are 
stricken  out,  I  am  ready  to  withdraw  my  motion  for  an  in- 
definite postponement.  My  object  is  to  prevent  any  thing 
but  the  reading  of  prayers. 

Rev.  Dr.  HiifiHT  :■ — That  is  precisely  the  object  of  our 
amendment. 

Mr.  Lacey  : — I  think,  under  the  reading  of  the  amendment, 
the  service  might  be  read  in  a  private  way  without  violation 
of  the  canon.  It  is  for  that  purpose  I  wish  this  to  be  laid 
on  the  table,  and  the  canon  to  stand  as  it  is.  If  it  will  let  a 
minister  perform  simply  the  marriage  ceremony,  bury  the 
dead,  and  visit  the  sick  of  his  parish,  I  can  see  no  objection 
to  the  adoption  of  the  report ;  but  if  it  is  to  permit  a  min- 
ister to  go  within  the  parochial  limits  of  another  minister 
and  in  violation  of  the  canonical  law  to  read  the  public 
prayers  and  services  of  the  Church,  I  desire  to  take  a  vote 
to  give  that  curse  the  seal  of  condemnation  on  the  part  of 
this  Convention.  1  wish  to  ask  the  meaning  of  those 
terms. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight  ; — If  I  understand  the  gentleman,  the 
amendment  proposed  by  the  committee  is  precisely  in  ac- 
cordance with  his  views.  It  does  allow  officiating  in  the 
respects  mentioned  by  him  for  a  rector's  own  pari.shionersbut 
does  not  allow  him  to  read  public  prayers  within  the  limits 
of  another  parish. 

Mr.  Lacey  : — I  do  not  understand  what  is  meant  by  a 
public  congregation.  He  may  officiate  for  three  or  five 
persons  in  a  private  room.  If  that  is  a  public  congregation 
and  if  he  is  excluded  from  preaching,  though  in  a  private 
room,  I  have  no  objection. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight  : — I  suppose  a  public  congregation  is  a 
congregation  assembling  in  a  room  which  is  open  to  any- 
body who  chooses  to  come  in,  whether  it  is  composed  of 
five,  or  six,  or  eight,  or  nine  persons. 

A  DEPtTTY  : — As  one  that  seconded  the  resolution  [indefi- 
nite postponement]  I  am  unwilling  it  shoidd  be  withdrawn. 
I  think  the  amendment  proposed  will  work  trouble;  we  have 
not  had  difficulty  as  it  has  been  heretofore.  The  acts  have 
all  been  performed  by  courtesy. 

Rev.  Dr.  Adams: — I  will  detain  this  Convention  but  a 
short  time.     A  new  state  of  circumstances  has  arisen  within 


the  last  twenty  years.     For  instance,  we  have  large  cities 
extending  endlessly,  andthefaotof  the  matter  with  regard  to 
large  cities   is  that  there  is  a  multitude  of  people  in  those 
cities  who   do  not   reside    in    them — who    have   their   city 
liouses,  say  for  instance  in  New  York  city,  and  ten,  twenty, 
thirty  or  forty  miles  out,  their  country  houses ;  they  go  out 
every  day  ;  they  sleep   there.     These    places  are  as  it  were 
roosting   places  for   people    that    have   their  business    in 
New    York.      Most    of    these    gentlemen    who    go     out 
belong     to     city     churches.      Now     I    should     like     this 
Convention  to  consider  the  effect  of  this    canon.     Here, 
for    instance,    is    a    parish,    we  will    say    in    Morrisauia, 
outside    of     New     York  ;      and    there    is    an    Episcopal 
Church   there.     Under  the   present  position  of  this   canon 
every  person  belonging  to  the  Church  that  comes  within  its 
limits,  jjro  hac  vice,  is  a  member  of  that  church.     Here  for 
instance,   is  St.  Stephen's  Church,  and  Trinity   Church,   in 
New  York,  some  of  whose  members  go  out  there,  and  they 
have  a  right  to  say,  under  this  canon,  we  are  members  of 
Trinity  Chuj'ch,  or  St.  Stephen's  Church,  New  York,  or  any- 
thing else ;  our  pastors  can  go  out  and  minister  except  in 
certain  given  exceptions.     I  don't  see   but  that  will  make 
endless  confusion.     I  don't  conceive  that  the  Committee  on 
Canons  intend  it  should    do  so ;    but  any   man    who  has 
been  coimected  with  this  Cliurch  will  see  that  every   city 
rector  will  be  authorized  to  say  to  people  "I  am  the  pastor 
except  that  there   is  a  little  suburban   minister  here  of  no 
importance   whatever."     I   say  that  a   man  who  acts  in  the 
spiri^  of  the  Gospel  would  not  act  in  that  way.     I  say  the 
majority  of  our  clergy  are  honest  men  who  have  the  spirit 
of  the  Gospel.     I  would  again  urge  upon  this  Convention 
another  ground  of  opposition.     I  Vjrought  it  before  this 
Convention  the  other  day,  that  is  to  say,  that  this  has  been 
the  law  of  the  Church  unchanged  for  seventy-six  years ;  the 
words  the  same  precisely  and  exactly.     We  are  now  asked 
to  go  in  and  change  this  canon  under  circumstances  of  very 
great  excitement.     The  circumstances  are  these: — that  this 
canon  law  for  seventy-six  years  has  had  a  trial  upon  it ; 
that  trial  has  been  carried  to  its  conclusion  ;  there  has  been 
a  court  established  and  the  sentence  pronounced  ;  the  sen- 
tence has  been  executed ;  and  the  public  is  very  much  ex- 
cited upon  it  one  way  or  the  other.    I  urge  upon  this  Con- 
vention that  if  we  touch  this  canon  it  would  be  simply  con- 
demning the  plaintiff  in  that  case,  and  an  acf|uittal  of  him 
who  is  condemned — a  stidtitication  of  our  Chmch,  and  the 
condemnation  of  the  court. 

Rev.  Dr.    Rylance,  of  Illinois: — I    object  to  this.     The 
amendment  is  not  retrospective. 

Rev.  Dr.  Adams  : — I  beg  leave  to  say  that  I  can  carry  out 
my  argument  in  my  own  way.  In  the  mind  of  the  great 
public,  outside  of  us,  the  effect  of  touching  this  canon  will 
be  simply  to  reverse  that  judicial  sentence,  to  condemn  the 
court,  to  condemn  the  Bishop ;  and  to  acquit  the  person 
who  has  been  brought  in  guilty  under  it.  For  these  reasons 
I  think  that  the  best  w.ay  for  this  Convention  is  to  leave  that 
canon  which  has  been  in  use  for  seventy-six  years,  as  it 
stands,  and  then  to  have  it  clearly  understood  that 
three  years  from  now,  when  this  excitement  has  passed 
away,  and  men  outside  of  the  Church  aud  inside  of  the 
Church  have  come  to  their  senses;  then  we  are  willing  to 
1   consider  all  objections  whatsoever  to  the  present  canon  and 


102 


make  any  alteration  whatever  that  may  seem  suitable  to 
the  wisdom  of  the  Church.  .  But  for  the  present  we  should 
leave  this  canon  just  precisely  as  it  stands,  and  make  no 
alteration  in  it.  Whatever  action  may  be  taken  upon  this 
question  of  indefinite  postponement  or  whatever  else,  these 
are  my  opinions  and  honestly  before  God  I  urge  them  upon 
the  laity  and  clergy  of  this  Church. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight  :  There  is  an  amendment  suggested 
which  I  would  be  willing  to  accept.  It  will  make  the  pro- 
viso read  thus ;  "Nothing  in  this  canon  shall  be  understood 
to  forbid  a  minister  of  this  Church  from  discharging  all  his 
duties  as  such,  in  respect  to  members  of  his  own  parish  who 
may  be  within  the  parochial  limits  of  another  minister,  ex- 
cept that  he  shall  not  preach  nor  read  prayers  to  any  con. 
gregation." 

Mr.  Lackt  : — I  then  withdraw  my  motion  of  indefinite 
postponement. 

Rev.  Mr.  Dashiell: — I  renew  the  motion  for  indefinite 
postponement. 

Rev.  Dr.  Howe  ; — I  wish  to  say,  in  reference  to  the  re- 
marks of  the  Rev.  gentleman  who  has  last  addressed  the 
House,  that  the  modification  of  this  canon  which  is  hereby 
proposed,  does  not  touch  that  part  which  it  has  been  sup- 
posed was  violated,  and  which  it  has  been  ruled  in  this  dio- 
cese was  violated  in  a  recent  case.  It  does  not  touch  that 
part  at  all ;  it  does  not  modify  it  in  any  one  syllable.  But 
I  was  going  to  say  that,  inasmuch  as  it  does  refer  to  other 
matters  and  bears  upon  e.'Lceptional  cases  in  which  a  minis- 
ter may  officiate  within  the  parochial  bounds  of  another 
minister,  in  so  far  it  goes  to  confirm  tliat  which  has  been 
already  done.  The  exception  confirms  the  rule  is  an  old 
adage ;  and  so  far  from  clergymen  following  their  parish- 
ioners and  claiming  their  parishioners,  as  my  Rev.  brother 
from  Tennessee  who  has  spoken  has  alleged,  it  is  not  that 
the  clergy  claim  their  parishioners  but  that  the  parishioners 
claim  their  pastors,  and  that  alters  the  case  altogether. 
There  are  not  to  be  ibuud  clergymen  who  will  go  to  any 
other  man's  parish  claiming  their  parishioners,  but  there 
are  tender  ties  which  grow  up  between  a  clergyman  and 
his  people  that  by  no  accidental  and  temporary  removal  can 
be  severed.  And  in  circumstances  of  sorrow  and  trial  those 
people  will  desire  the  presence  of  their  Christian  friend  and 
pastor,  and  there  ought  to  be  nothing  in  the  canon  law  to 
break  up  such  ties  or  rebuke  such  sentiments. 

Rev.  Dr.  Stubbs  : — Other  questions  are  raised  here  than 
those  having  a  reference  to  the  past,  with  reference  to 
which  I  wish  to  say  a  word ;  otherwise  I  should  not  open 
my  mouth.  This  amendment  will  open  the  door  for  more 
mischief  than  has  existed  heretofore.  I  defy  any  one  in 
this  House  to  point  out  any  instance  where  the  clergy  of 
other  parishes  have  been  prohibited,  at  any  time,  from  vis- 
iting their  parishioners  under  circumstances  mentioned  by 
the  delegate  from  Pennsylvania.  I  defy  any  one  to  point 
out  any  instance  where  the  law  of  courtesy  has  been  broken, 
and  where  we  have  not  been  at  all  times  ready  to  receive 
them  with  open  arms  and  extend  to  them  all  the  hospitali- 
ties and  courtesies  which  are  due  from  one  Christian  brother 
to  another.  It  is  a  law  of  our  common  nature,  our  com- 
mon humanity,  and  one  which  this  canon  cannot  give  were 
it  enforced.  It  is  already  conceded ;  we  want  no  canon  to 
give  us  this  law  of  courtesy.     But  this  canon  does  recog- 


nize what  I  am  not  willing  to  recognize,  and  what  is  ut- 
terly  unchurch-like — that  parishioners  may  go  from  one 
end  of  the  country  to  the  other,  and  keep  up  their  ties  with  . 
the  church  which  they  have  left,  instead  of  taking  letters, 
as  they  should  do,  of  commendation,  and  presenting  them 
to  the  clergyman  of  the  parish  where  they  may  go.  There 
should  be  that  confidence  that  when  parishioners  go  to 
another  parish,  they  should  be  commended  by  their  pastor 
to  the  confidence  and  care  of  the  pastor  to  whose  parish 
they  go;  .that  is  Christian-like;  but  the  passage  of  this 
amendment  wiU  simply  neutralize  that  sort  of  confidence 
which  ought  to  exist  among  the  clergy.  If  any  member  of 
my  parish  should  go  to  some  other  parish,  I  would  give 
him  letters  of  commendation,  and  place  him  in  the  confi- 
dence and  care  of  the  pastor  of  auother  parish,  knowing 
that  he  would  look  after  him ;  and  if  I  should  be  called 
upon  to  go  there  I  should  go.  I  maintain  that  is  Church- 
like and  Christian  ;  and  any  canon  which  tends  in  any  way 
to  interfere  with  this  state  of  things  is  unchurch-like  and 
unchristian.  Besides  all  that,  this  amendment  exposes  us 
to  greater  dangers ;  because  now,  if  a  clergyman  goes  down 
and  officiates  publicly,  we  know  what  he  does  and  we  can 
meet  him ;  but,  if  you  sanction  the  going  out  of  clergy- 
men to  hold  private  meetings,  then  he  is  placed,  as  it  were, 
beyond  our  reach,  and  you  make  a  perfect  nest  of  hornets 
in  the  parish  ;  if  you  have  any  mischievous  men  and  women 
there,  you  authorize  this  clergyman  to  go  down  and  agitate 
with  them  and  aggravate  this  mischief;  and  there  we  can- 
not reach  him.  Ho  is  not  amenable  to  the  law.  We  all 
know  that  at  various  times  this  thing  has  been  tried,  not 
only  among  us  but  outside  of  us ;  as,  during  the  times  of 
the  great  rebellion  in  England,  the  Roman  Catholic  Priests 
made  mischief.  They  were  sent  there  as  missionary  priests 
just  in  this  way.  In  that  manner  they  did  more  than  any 
body  else  to  subvert  the  throne  and  Church  of  England. 
Honorable  men  will  not  go  for  the  purpose  of  making  mis- 
chief; but  if  you  allow  mischief-making  men  to  go  into 
parishes,  and  other  dioceses  where  the  people  are  contented, 
to  agitate  and  do  this  thing  in  private,  you  open  the  door 
to  more  mischief  than  ever  yet  existed  in  the  Church. 
Why  not  let  the  canon  stay  as  it  is  ?  If  you  make  this 
amendment,  you  open  the  door  to  immense  mischief. 

Rev.  William  Newton  : — For  myself,  though  entirely 
opposed  to  this  canon  as  sought  to  be  construed,  I  have  no 
personal  grievance ;  and  I  am  thankful  to  say  that  I  in  part 
represent  a  diocese  than  which  I  claim  there  is  no  diocese 
more  thoroughly  loyal  to  all  the  canons  and  rubrics  of  the 
Church.  It  will  be  found  that  the  heart  of  the  Church  in 
Ohio  beats  in  entire  and  cordial  loyalty  to  the  canons  and 
rules  of  this  Church.  Therefore  I  desire  to  say  that  while 
I  think  I  am  opposed  to  this  amendment,  not  so  far  as  the 
principle  is  concerued,  but  simply  as  a  choice  of  evils,  I 
would  prefer  to  be  under  the  present  canon ;  if  there  is  to 
be  a  pressure  at  all,  I  think  it  wiser  that  the  pressure  should 
come  unalleviated  in  order  that  we  may  get  in  the  future 
an  efficient  relief.  For  my  own  part  I  find  no  difficulty,  if, 
as  they  seem  to  me,  the  intent  and  the  spirit  and  the  mean- 
ing of  this  canon  could  only  be  carried  out.  I  know  I  am 
speaking  against  the  sentiment  of  many  upon  this  floor. 
But  I  must  say  that  if  one  word  should  be  construed  in  ac- 
cordance with  what  I  think  is  and  has  been  the  meaning  of 


103 


one  word  as  used  in  the  various  canons,  all  the  difficulties 
would  disappear  from  the  consideration  of  this  grave  ques- 
tion,— and  that  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  parish  itself. 
If  gentlemen  will  turn  to  the  canon,  and  the  section  imme- 
diately preceding  the  section  under  consideration,  they  will 
find  what  I  understand  it  to  be;  " Every  minister  of  this 
t'hurch  shall  make  out  and  continue  as  far  as  practicable  a 
list  of  all  families  and  other  persons  within  his  cure,  and  it 
shall  continue  for  the  use  of  his  successor  to  be  continued 
by  him,"  etc.     The  next  section  goes  on  :  "  No  minister  be- 
longing to  this  Church  shall  officiate,"  etc.,  ending  with, 
"  the  parochial  cure  of  another."     If  we  simply  adopt  what 
I  understand  to  be  a  strictly  legal  idea,  that  you  must  ex 
tend  to  the  same  word  the  same  meaning  entirely  through 
the  canon,  the  word  parish,  according  to  this  construction, 
means — not  the  parochial  limits  in   a  certain  territorial  or 
geographical  space — but  the  cure  of  the  souls  of  the  con- 
gregation  within  the   limits.     I   know  very  well   that  the 
words  parochial  limits  are  used ;  and  the  inference  is  that 
therefore  the  parish  must  take  the  meaning  of  these  words, 
parochial  limits.     But  I  understand  the  parish  to  be  the 
cure,  the  congregation,  the  church,  the  souls  within  certain 
geographical  limits.     It  is  a  jion  xeguitiir  that  therefore  a 
parish    is   geographical  or   territorial   in   its   construction. 
Hence  I  find  no  difficulty  whatever  in  this  canon  as  it  is. 
There  is  another  point  that  is  pressing  upon  the  consciences 
of  many  members  upon  this  floor,  and  that  is  that,  as  min- 
isters of  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  we  are  called  upon  to  preach 
that    Gospel   without    these    territorial    limits    ofiensively 
urged  upon  us ;  and  that,  in   the   discharge   of  the   duties 
which  pertain  to   us  as  ministers  of  Christ — not  in  the  dis- 
charge of  the  courtesies  that  belong  to  one  another  that  we 
should  be  called  upon  to  face  the  question  of  an  inoffensive 
intrusion — we  should  be  left  to  the  discharge  of  our  duties, 
under  the  higher  and  freer  spirit,  that  belongs  to  us  as  min- 
ister of  the   Church   in  communion  with  which  we   stand. 
Therefore,  it  is  for  these  reasons  I  feel  that,  if  the   spirit  of 
the  canon  were  thus  followed  out,  and  if  the  spirit  of  our 
great  commission  were  thus  followed  out,  there  would  be 
no  difficulty  in  the  case.     For  that  reason,  I  think  I  shall 
vote  against  the  amendment,  in  order  that  the  pressure  can 
he  made  upon  all  our  minds. 

Rev.  Dr.  Pierce. — I  will  not  keep  the  attention  of 
the  House  more  than  two  minutes.  I  am  opposed  to  this 
amendment  for  three  reasons.  In  the  first  place,  be- 
cause the  only  divisions  that  are  proper  in  the  Church 
of  God  are  geoj;raphical  divisions.  Secondly,  I  am  op- 
posed to  it  because  it  strengthens  a  spirit  of  Congrega- 
tionalism, which,  in  my  opinion,  is  now  the  severest  curse 
that  the  Church  is  afflicted  with.  And,  thirdly,  because 
I  think  that  the  whole  canon  may,  as  it  stands,  be  im- 
improved,  by  saying  no  man  shall  officiate  contrary  to 
the  prohibition  of  the  minister,  instead  of  requiring  the 
permission.  That,  I  think,  would  be  a  greater  improve- 
ment, and  would  bring  the  canon  into  conformity  with 
what  is  actually  now  the  practice. 

Rev.  George  N.  James,  of  Tennessee. — We  are 
told  that  the  amendment  will  introduce  a  new  precedent 
— that  the  clergyman  is  allowed  to  follow  up  hi?  parisli- 
ioners.     What  effect  will  this  have?     Herejis  a  man  in 


his  parish,  and  has  half  a  dozen  of  his  people  away  in 
different  parts  of  the  country,  and  he  is  telegraphed  to 
to  go  and  visit  a  sick  parishioner.     What  is  he  to  do 
with  his  congi'egation  at  home  if  he  is  to  be,  every  now 
and  then,  with  his  parishioners  a  hundred  miles  away  V 
Rev.  W.  R.  Richardson,  of  Texas. — I  have  hoped 
very  much  that  a  certain  point  would  be  brought  out 
which  I  think  is  very  objectionable  in  the  working  o' 
this  proposed  amendment  to  the  canon.     1  have  looked 
for  those  who  are  familiar  with  the  canons  of  the  Church 
and  with  the  rubrical  provisions  also  to  bring  out  the 
point  to  which  I  refer.     It  is  this.     This  propo.sed  amend- 
ment will  allow  clergymen  to  go  into  other  parishes  and 
perform  the  rites  of  the  Church — administer  the  sacra- 
ments— which  by  the  rubrics  are  intended  to  be  publicly 
performed.     This  amendment  requires  them  to  be  per- 
formed privately,  otherwise  makes  each  travelling  rector 
with  a  peripatetic  commission  a  rector  pro  tern,  of  any 
parish  in  which  his  parishioners  may  be  visiting.     And 
he  thus,  if  he  obeys  the  rubrics  of  the  Church,  has  to 
take  possession  of  the  church-building  to  administer  the 
rites  of  the  Church.     That  is  a  difficulty  which  I  have 
not  heard  advanced  by  those  so  well  versed  in  the  laws 
of  the  Church. 

Rev.  Dr.  Richard  S.  Mason  rose  to  speak,  when 
there  were  loud  calls  for  the  question,  with  reference  to 
which— 

Rev.  Dr.  Littlejohn  said :  1  for  one  have  no  desire 
to  say  a  word  upon  this  amendment.  My  own  mind  is 
clear  about  it;  but  I  do  claim  that  every  member  of  the 
House  should  have  the  opportunity  to  utter  his  convic- 
tions without  being  gagged  down  by  this  cry  for  the 
question.  It  is  not  becoming  the  dignity  of  this  body. 
We  may  be  impatient  to  take  the  question ;  I  have  been 
myself;  but  I  am  unwilling,  when  a  venerabh-  member 
rises  in  his  place,  to  see  such  demonstrations  of  impa- 
tience as  these. 

Rev.  Dr.  Richard  S.  Mason. — I  have  a  few  words 
only  to  offer.  I  am  influenced  by  the  example  of  our 
blessed  Redeemer,  who  confined  Himself  to  His  parochial 
charge.  Our  blessed  Saviour  came  as  a  minister  to 
preach — the  minister  of  God.  He  came  as  Redeemer 
of  mankind.  He  came  to  be  finally  the  King  of  kings 
and  Lord  of  lords  in  His  human  nature.  While  He  was 
upon  the  earth,  and  before  His  death.  He  was  a  minister 
to  preach  to  the  people  of  Israel.  He  therefore  would 
go  nowhere  else.  He  says  "  I  am  not  sent  but  unto  the 
lost  sheep  of  the  House  of  Israel."  He  sent  forth  His 
apostles  and  disciples,  and  said,  "  Go  not  into  the  way  of 
the  Gentiles,  but  go  rather  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  House 
of  Israel."  When  He  arose  from  the  dead  He  gave 
them  a  general  commission,  confining  Himself — if  I  may 
dare  to  use  th,e  expression — and  His  chosen  disciples  and 
apostles  to  their  paroehial  province  to  preach  to  the  Isra- 
elites. In  my  opinion  a  greater  injury  would  result  with 
reference  to  the  cause  of  true  religion  from  the  faction 
and  heart-burnings  which  are  produced  by  any  thing 


104 


like  an  attempt  at  intrusion,  than  by  any  thing  like  a 
proper  restraint  upon  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel. 

Mr.  Thomas  B  Lawson,  of  Louisiana. — An  assertion 
has  been  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Wisconsin,  both 
to-day  and  in  his  speech  yesterday,  which  differs  from 
my  memory  on  this  matter.     He  asserts  that  this  canon 
has  always  received  favor.     My  recollection,  then,  is  en- 
tirely at  fault.     That  Rev.  brother  was  a  member  of  the 
Convention  of  1859.     Does  he  forget,  that  for  two  days, 
we  discussed  this  very  question,  and  that  the  great  ma- 
jority of  the  speakers  who  spoke  upon  this  point  spoke 
against  the  canon,  pointing  out  its  absurdities  and  contra- 
dictions ?     Yet  we  were  compelled,  for  want  of  a  better, 
I  suppose,  to  retain  the  old  canon.     I  voted,  with  many 
here,  for  a  substitute  which  has  been  read  by  the  gentle- 
man [Mr.  Conyngham]  from  Pennsylvania.     That  sub- 
stitute shows  that  the  gentleman  is  mistaken  as  to  the 
facts.     This  canon  has  made  more  trouble  in  this  Church 
than  any  other  I  have  known.     I  have  never  heard  ot 
any  canon  with  which  dissatisfaction  has  been  expressed 
more  frequently  than  with  this  canon.     It  has  a  double 
edge.     One  of  the  edges,  I  admit,  may  be  sometimes 
wisely  used  against  intrusion ;  the  other  edge  may  be 
used  for  obstructing  the  Gospel  of  Christ ;  and  that  has 
been  so  used  and  may  be  used  again.     There  are  objec- 
tions to  the  amendment  before  us ;  yet  I  would  vote  for 
the  amendment  for  the  purpose  of  giving  my  testimony 
that  1  desire  some  amelioration  of  the  canon.     For  the 
same  reason  that  I  voted  for  the  substitute  in  1859,  I 
will  vote  tor  this.     That  substitute  was  offered  by  a  mi- 
nority of  the  Committee  on  Canons,  and  showed  that  the 
Committee  on  Canons  differed  very  much  on  the  expe- 
diency of  that  canon.     It  shows  that  the  Bishop  of  Penn- 
sylvania doubted  its  wisdom.     It  shows  that  the  President 
of  this  House  believed  the  canon  unwise,  and  that  the 
other  members  of  the  committee  took  the  same  view. 
The  memorials  presented  to  this  House  show  that  many 
men  have  also  felt  that  it  is  operating  injuriously  upon 
the  interests  of  the  Church.     I  say  that  it  is  wise  to  have 
some  rule  protecting  the  rights  of  presbyters ;  I  am  will- 
inc  to  have  some  such  rule  which  may  not  at  the  same 
time  be  used  to  obstruct  the  presbytery  of  the  Church  in 
the  work  of  winning  souls.     This  amendment  does  not 
satisfy  me.     Yet  it  is  some  rela.xation  of  the   canon. 
Such  is  its  object.     We  should  endeavor  to  relax  where 
we  can  the  rigidity  of  this  rule,  and  freely  accord  to  our 
brethren  the  privileges  that  Christian  courtesy  will  indi- 
cate.    I  desired  this  opportunity  of  recording  my  testi- 
mony in  opposition  to  the  fact  assumed  by  the  gentleman 
from  Wisconsin  that  this  canon  has  given  constant  satis- 
faction. 

Mr. :  As  an  humble  member  of  this  Conven- 
tion I  have  not  troubled  you  with  .Tny  remarks  since  I 
have  been  here,  and  I  have  listened  with  great  interest 
to  the  discussion  which  has  been  had  upon  this  matter. 
Notwithstanding  all  that  has  been  said,  I  still  adhere  to 
my  original  views  with  regard  to  it,  and  that  is  that  the 


canon  should  not  be  amended.  Those  of  you  who  are 
acquainted  with  the  canon  law  of  the  Church  know  that 
in  the  substance  and  almost  the  letter  it  has  existed 
since  the  Council  of  Ephesus.  It  has  been  enacted  in 
the  laws  of  Justinian  ;  it  is  found  to-daj'  in  every  branch 
of  the  Churcli  Catholic ;  and  why  this  branch  of  the 
Church  Catholic  should  be  chafing,  and  so  uneasy  under 
the  discipline  of  the  Church  that  has  come  down  from 
age  to  age,  I  cannot  understand.  There  is  something  in 
this  body  that  is  aggressive  against  all  canons.  We  are 
working  to  break  down  and  build  up  in  every  direction. 
Instead  of  working  wisely  and  harmoniously  under  the 
canons  and  rules  of  our  Church  as  our  forefathers  did, 
we  are  constantly  altering  and  changing  until  our  canon 
law  to-day  is  the  most  singular  looking  specimen  of 
canon  law  I  ever  saw.  It  has  amendment  upon  amend- 
ment and  condition  upon  condition,  until  you  can  hardly 
tell  what  is  the  law  of  the  Church  to-day.  The  conse- 
quence is  that  this  disposition  to  make  law,  and  break 
law,  and  form  new  enactments,  consumes  our  whole  time, 
while  there  are  a  thousand  things  of  ten-fold  more  in- 
terest to  us.  I  cannot  see  why  any  man  who  holds  him- 
self to  bo  n  jentleman  should  ever  refuse  any  one  who 
wishes  to  come  into  his  parish  and  perform  any  of  the 
duties  of  his  ministry.  It  has  been  done  in  every  age 
of  the  Church ;  and  I  conceive  that  any  Churchman 
who  would  refuse  permission  to  perform  those  things 
which  the  amendment  proposes,  is  unworthy  of  the 
name  of  gentleman.  And  why  you  should  make  laws 
in  the  Church  to  force  men  to  do  that  which  all  Chris- 
tian men  ought  to  do  and  will  do,  is  inexplicable  to  my 
mind  I  do  think  that  this  work  is  certainly  unworthy 
of  men  professing  to  stand  here  to  represent  a  great 
brand)  of  the  Church  Catholic.  We  are  to-day  stulti- 
fying ourselves. 

Rev.  Dr.  Andrews: — This  is  an  amendment  offered 
liy  the  deputy  from  Virginia.  I  move  that  the  deputy 
from  Virginia  as  the  mover  of  the  resolution  have  leave 
to  speak,  and  that  then  we  shall  vote  upon  the  question. 
Rev.  Dr.  Norton  : — I  have  not  one  word  to  say  in 
its  defense,  if  it  does  not  commend  itself  to  the  judg- 
ment of  the  members  of  the  House. 

The  question  was  then  put  on  the  indefinite  postpone- 
ment of  the  proposed  amendment,  and  the  vote  being 
taken  resulted,  yeas  122,  nays  78;  and  so  the  question 
was  indefinitely  postponed. 

t)n  motion  of  Judge  Battle,  the  proposed  canon  on 
the  consecration  of  churches  was  made  the  second  order 
of  the  day. 

On  motion  of  Dr.  Adams,  a  canon  commonly  called 
the  Hugh  Davey  Evans  canon  on  marriage  and  divorce, 
was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Canons. 

On  motion  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Adams,  there  was  referred 
to  the  same  committee  the  following  resolution : 

Resolved,  The  House  of  Bishops  concurring,  the  fol- 
lowing canon  is  hereby  enacted  :  While  our  own  col- 
lection of  hymns  usually  annexed  to  the  Prayer  Book 


105 


is  the  hymnal  of  this  Church,  nevertheless  any  clergy- 
man of  this  Church  with  the  express  consent  of  his 
Bishop,  is  authorized  to  use  as  supplementary  any 
hymns  in  the  underneath  collections  employed  in  our 
own  Church  : — Hj'nms,  Ancient  and  Modern  ;  Hymns 
for  the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the  Gospel ; 
Hymns  for  the  Church  and  Home.  And  this  permission 
shall  be  applied  for  in  writing. 

On  motion  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Pitkin,  there  was  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Canons  a  memorial  in  favor  of 
power  being  granted,  under  certain  circumstances,  to 
remit  six  months  of  probation  in  the  case  of  clergymen 
coming  from  other  bodies. 

On  motion  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Stubbs,  a  canon  of  similar 
intent  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Canons. 

With  reference  to  which  memorial  and  canon  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Mead  said: — The  maxim  which  guides  me  in 
this  matter  is  that  of  my  reverend  father,  now  in  Para- 
dise, Bishop  Brownell,  whose  usual  expression  was 
"  do  not  catch  [fish]  faster  than  you  can  cure  [therti."] 

Rev.  Dr.  Me.id,  in  behalf  of  the  Committee  on  the 
disagreeing  of  the  votes  of  tlie  two  Houses  in  regard  to 
the  creation  of  a  commission  on  church-unity,  submitted 
the  following  report : 

The  Committee  of  Conference  on  the  resolution  of  the 
House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  passed  Oct.  12,  18(i8, 
on  the  subject  of  the  restoration  of  Church  Unity,  and  non- 
concurred  in  by  the  House  of  Bishops,  beg  leave  to  repoi't 
the  following  preaniljle  and  resolution,  for  adoption  by  both 
houses  of  the  General  Convention  : — • 

Whereas  the  restoration  of  the  unity  of  the  Church  is  an 
object  of  vast  importance,  as  without  restored  unity  it  would 
be  impossible  to  fulfil  her  mission  to  evangelize  the  world  ; 
and  whereas,  iu  the  opinion  of  many,  the  signs  of  the  times 
clearly  indicate  that  there  is  a  strong  and  iucreasing  desire 
among  the  churches  and  in  the  various  denominations  of 
Christians  in  Christendom  to  see  such  unity  restored,  there- 
fore. 

Resolved,  That,  with  the  concurrence  of  the  House  of 
Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  a  committee  may  be  appointed 
by  the  House  of  Bishops,  from  a;uong  their  own  number, 
who  shall  be  an  organ  of  communication  with  other  branches 
of  the  Church  and  with  the  dilferent  Christian  bodies  who 
may  desire  information  or  conference  on  the  suiiject,  the 
said  committee  to  be  entitled  "  The  Comnussiou  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  Uuited  States  of  America 
on  Church  Unity." 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead  : — This  was  agrce<l  upon  by  the  Com- 
mittee of  Conference,  and  a  similar  report  has  been,  or 
will  be  presented  to  the  House  of  Bishops.  I  move  the 
adoption  of  the  resolution. 

Hon.  S.'  B.  RuGci.ES : — Will  the  chairman  of  the 
committee  explain  why  the  clergy  and  laity  should 
take  no  part  in  this  commission  ? 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead  : — For  the  reason  that,  in  treating 
with  other  branches  of  the  Church,  they  more  naturally 
recognize  the  Bishops  as  their  compeers.  With  regard 
to  denominations  in  Christendom  other  than  those  who 
are  branches  of  the  Church,  they  would  most  naturally, 
if  they  wish  to  make  any  communication,  communicate 
with  the  head  of  the  Church  in  the  dioceses,  or  with  the 
commission  appointed  by  the  House  of  Bishops  ;  and, 
although,  in  the  original  resolution,  I  desired,  if  it  were 
compatible  with  the  object  which  was  sought,  that  there 
14 


should  be  an  equality  among  the  Bishops,  clergy,  and 
laity  in  the  commission,  yet,  upon  conference  with  the 
Bishops,  we  became  sufficiently  satisfied  to  believe  that 
it  would  be  better  to  leave  the  question,  for  the  present, 
in  the  care  of  the  House  of  Bishops,  and  hf  satisfied 
with  what  they  should  do.  They  may  not  have  any- 
thing laid  before  them,  because  they  are  only  to  receive 
applications.  They  are  to  consider  them,  if  made,  and 
give  answers,  and  finally  report  to  the  next  General 
Convention  on  the  subject.  They  have  no  powei  of 
action,  except  the  power  of  conference ;  and,  under 
these  circumstances,  I  move,  most  cordially,  that  the 
House  of  Bishops  be  authorized,  according  to  that  res- 
olution, by  this  House,  to  appoint  such  a  committee  of 
their  own  body.  You  will  bear  in  mind  this  one  thing; 
and  this  is  a  very  important  feature  which  I  wish  the 
House  to  understand,  in  view  of  its  own  position  and 
self-respect.  In  18.56,  irrespective  of  any  consultation 
with  this  House,  the  House  of  Bishojis  appointed  a 
commission  of  Bishops  on  this  subject.  They  did  not 
recognize  the  House  of  Deputies  as  co-ordinate  in  such 
an  important  matter.  Here,  the  agreement  between 
the  committees  of  the  conference  is  that  they  shall  ask 
the  House  of  Deputies  to  do  that  which  they  clainied 
they  had  a  right,  independently  of  the  House  of  Depu- 
ties, to  do  in  1856. 

Hon.  S.  B  RuOGi.ES :— It  is  understood,  then,  tliat 
they  have  no  power  of  definite  action  without  the  assent 
of  the  Convention. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead: — None  at  all. 

Hon.  S.  B.  Ruggles: — Are  we  to  concur  in  the  com- 
mittee they  name  ? 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead  : — I  presume,  if  this  House  should 
pass  that  resolution,  the  House  of  Bishops  will  pass  a 
corresponding  resolution,  an<l  we  shall  have  a  message 
asking  our  concurrence ;  and  when  they  appoint  the 
commission,  there  is  an  end  of  it. 

Hon.  S.  B.  Ruggles  :  —Then  they  have  the  sole  pow- 
er of  selection. 

The  resolution  was  adopted. 

Message  No.  27,  from  the  House  of  Bishops,  gave  in- 
formation that  that  House  had  adopted  the  resolutions 
appended  to  the  report  of  the  joint  committee  on  the 
Italian  Reform  movement. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mahan: — I  move  that  a  day  be  fixed  for 
the  consideration  of  this  subject ;  and  T  would  also  move 
that  the  Kev.  Mr.  Langdon,  who  knows  more  about  the 
subject  than  any  of  us,  be  requested  to  address  the 
House  on  the  subject.  I  make  this  motion  because  the 
subject  is  vastly  more  iujportant  than  it  appears  at  first 
sight,  and  one  which  it  is  difficult  to  understand  suffi- 
ciently, until  we  have  received  every  ray  of  light  that 
can  be  thrown  upon  it.  I  have  no  doubt  that  his  re- 
marks will  be  of  interest  to  the  House,  and  might  be 
the  means  of  exciting  greater  interest  in  the  subject. 
I  move  that  it  be  made  the  order  of  llic  day  for  Satur- 
day.    [Which  motion  was  agreed  to.] 


106 


Rev.  Dr.  Pierce,  hj  general  consent,  presented  a  me 
morial  addressed  to  the  House  of  Bishops,  with  refer- 
ence to  the  Nicene  Creed  ;  which  memorial  was  sijjned 
hy  ten  Presbyters  of  the  Church.  He  also  presented 
the  same  petition  signed  by  the  Right  Rev.  Dr.  South- 
f!;ate  and  others — clergymen  of  the  Church  fi'om  twenty- 
one  different  dioceses.  He  also  presented  a  preamble 
and  resolutions  upon  the  same  subject,  adopted  by  the 
Diocese  of  Alabama. 

Rev.  Dr.  Rylance: — It  becomes  my  duty  to  state 
that  T  had  a  petition  sent  to  me,  precisely  in  the  words 
of  the  one  just  read  to  us,  signed  by  about  forty  names. 
It  was  not  from  the  Piocese  of  Illinois,  but  from  indi- 
viduals, clergymen  and  laymen,  who  signed  it  in  the 
city  of  Chicago.  It  is  not  here,  but  I  suppose  it  is  prop- 
er to  state  that  such  a  petition  was  sent. 

A  Pepitv  : — T  hold  in  my  hand  a  similar  testimonial, 
from  the  Diocese  of  Indiana. 

Rev.  Dr.  Adams: — I  have  instructions  and  petitions 
from  the  Diocese  of  Wisconsin,  unanimously  passed,  in 
regard  to  this  s.anie  matter. 

Rov.  Dr.  LiTTi.E.ronN  : — T  must  insist  that  the  Presi- 
dent will  enforce  the  rule  of  the  House  which  has  made 
an  order  of  the  day. 

On  motion,  the  various  memorials  and  resolutions 
were  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Prayer-Book. 

The  House  then  resumed  the  consideration  of  the 
order  of  the  day — the  report  of  the  Committee  on 
Christian  Education. 

Rev.  Dr.  Littlkjohn  : — I  do  not  intend  to  say  anything 
in  advocacy  of  the'resolutions  offeredlby  the  Committee  on 
Christian  Education ;  they  all  relate  to  practical  measures, 
abo\it  which  I  presume  there  will  be  very  little  difference  of 
opinion,  I  desire  during  the  brief  time  that  I  may  address 
the  House  to  speak  to  a  matter  of  principle  which  I  desire 
to  emhody  in  a  resolution  to  be  incorporated  with  thosS 
offered  by  the  Committee  on  Christian  Education. 

I  think  it  must  be  admitted  on  all  hands  that  up  to  this 
time  a  painful  contrast  has  obtained  between  our  belief  and 
our  practice  on  the  whole  matter  of  education — between 
our  practice  and  our  principles,  gathered  as  they  are  from 
the  Word  of  God  and  the  example  of  the  Church  in  the  age 
of  her  purity  and  of  her  power.  About  this  I  presume 
there  will  be  no  disagreement  in  this  House.  First,  then,  I 
hold  that  this  Church  does  not  expect  to  grow  in  the  main, 
by  individual  conversions  from  without,  but  rather  by  or- 
ganic expansion  and  developement  from  within.  In  the 
statement  of  this  sound  principle,  I  think  we  have  the  real 
philosophy  of  all  the  Church's  practical  methods.  I  think 
here  'lies  the  key  to  the  pervading  genius  of  the  greater 
portion  of  her  practical  work.  This  single  principle,  of  nec- 
essity, makes  this  Church  a  training  and  a  nurturing 
Church.  And  if  there  be  one  peculiarity  or  one  claim  more 
marked  than  another  in  her  work  for  souls,  it  is  this;  that 
she  does  consciously  and  intelUgently  undertake,  from  first 
to  last,  to  educate  the  Christian  children  into  Christian  men 
and  women.  It  is,  sir,  that  she  is  unwilling  to  treat  the  at- 
tributes and  faculties  of  our  nature  except  in  their  unsever- 
able  relations,  if  I  may  so  speak,  to  a  personal  immortality. 


It  is  that  she  values  character  more  than  knowledge ;  that 
she  values  life  in  the  total  expression  of  its  responsibility 
rather  than  in  the  culture,  however  wonderful,  of  any  one 
series  of  faculties  in  that  nature.  It  is,  moreover,  that  she 
is  unwilling  to  look  for  a  single  hour,  with  toleration  upon 
any  distinction  made  between  the  food  intended  for  the  in- 
tellect and  the  food  intended  for  the  conscience  and  the 
will.  This  Church  knows  nothing  of  such  a  theory ;  it  can- 
not be  sound,  in  her  standard  nor  in  her  Prayer-Book,  nor 
in  her  history.  I  speak  now  of  her  theory  as  defined  and 
embodied  in  her  history.  She  is  unwilling  to  look  with 
favor  upon  that  false  and  wretched  theory  of  the  day,  which 
says  to  this  teacher,  "It  is  your  business  to  take  care  of  the 
brain  ;"  and  to  that  teacher,  "It  is  your  business  to  take 
care  of  the  heart."  The  two  fundamental  principles  upon 
which  the  Church  is  disjiosed  to  act  in  this  matter,  are 
these  :  Firist,  That  every  child  of  hers  shall  be  treated  from 
first  to  last  in  the  complete  organic  unity  of  its  being.  Sec- 
ondly, That  all  knowledge  of  every  sphere  and  of  every 
grade  shall  be  treated  in  practical  subordination  to  the  soul's 
health. 

Now,  sir,  I  presume  that,  in  respect  of  these  principles 
there  will  be  no  disagreement  of  opinion  among  the  mem- 
bers of  this  House.  Now,  I  beg  to  ask  what  has  been  our 
practice  under  these  principles  ?  We  admit  that  we  hold, 
and  that  we  have  always  held  them.  But  what  has  been  our 
practice  ?  It  is  not  for  me  to  arraign  those  who  have  hith- 
erto fa.shioned  the  practical  work  of  this  Church.  I  do  not 
desire  to  do  it,  nay,  I  shrink  from  the  task  of  reciting  the 
indictment  which  I  believe  the  unfaithfulness  of  our  past 
justifies.     I  decline  utterly  a  criticism  in  this  matter. 

I  say,  notwithstanding  what  we  have  held  and  what  we 
have  t.iught  in  respect  to  this  great  interest,  what  is  the  fact 
to-day  ?  Simply  this :  Tliere  is  no  other  lack  in  the  Church 
to-day  so  great  as  her  lack  of  systematic,  all-pervading  care 
in  the  Christian  nurture  of  the  young  living  within  her  fold. 
There  is  one  great  power  which  she  has  permitted  to  lie  un- 
used, and  that  is  the  power  of  education.  There  is  one 
great  talent  which  God  has  given  her,  one  that  has  more 
to  do  with  the  coming  ages  of  the  Church  than  any  other 
which  I  had  almost  said — I  hope  I  shall  not  be  betrayed  in- 
to any  extravagant  statement  in  so  grave  a  matter  as  this — 
which,  I  had  almost  said,  she  has  tied  up  in  the  napkin  of 
chronic  indilTcrence,  and  buried  in  the  soil  of  forgetfulness. 
Look  at  the  facts  as  they  stand.  We  have,  by  our  mission 
ary  and  parochi.al  work  in  this  country,  achieved  conquests 
which  we  have  taken  no  pains  to  fortify  and  consolidiite 
We  have  multiplied  our  churches,  dioceses,  and 'parishes 
but — I  beg  careful  consideration  of  this  subject — have  we  in 
any  corresponding  degree  strengthened  our  corporate  grasp 
upon  the  future  ?  No,  sir,  we  have  not.  In  my  judgment, 
we  have  permitted  one  of  the  chief  purposes  of  the  Divine 
commission  of  the  Church  to  become  practically  olisolete 
and  an  abandoned  and  surrendered  function.  Why,  sir,  I 
say  with  profound  sorrow — but  I  can  say  no  less  if  I  speak 
what  I  believe  to  be  truth  in  this  matter — this  Church,  not- 
withstanding the  position  which  she  holds,  and  which  I  have 
just  alluded  to,  has  to-day  no  place  of  dignity  or  of  power 
among  the  educators  of  this  land.  She  is  doing  no  work  in 
this  direction  which  inspires  her  friends  with  respect,  or 
which   creates  a  solitary  fear  among  her  adversaries.     So 


107 


far  from  doing  anything  even  in  the  least  degree,  to  educate 
the  children  of  this  laud,  she  has  not  so  much  as  educated 
her.  own  children.  I  beg  to  remind  the  members  of  this 
House  of  the  statistics  draivn  from  eleven  dioceses  of  this 
Church,  in  the  report  submitted  yesterday — the  beggarly  ar- 
ray of  not  quite  two  thousand  children  being  educated  by  this 
('hurch  in  the  eleven  states  of  this  country  ;  ami  if  the  sta- 
tistics had  been  presented  touching  the  work  done  in  the 
other  states,  I  do  not  think  tlie  case  would  have  been  m;ile- 
rially  improved.  Now,  I  hold  these  to  be  our  principles ; 
aud  I  hold  this  unfortunately,  disastrously,  to  have  been  our 
practice  up  to  this  time.  Of  course,  there  are  some  notice- 
able exceptions  ;  they  will  readily  occur  to  every  member 
of  this  House.  Having  placed  our  faith  and  practice  side 
by  side,  and  shown  how  glorious  the  one  is  and  how  beg- 
garly and  insufficient  the  other  is,  I  beg  to  ask,  why  is 
this  ?  I  have  my  own  reason  for  it,  and  I  shall  venture  to 
give  it  with  all  diffidence  in  presence  of  so  many  thoughtful 
minds.  I  shall  speak,  I  trust,  with  becoming  care  in  en- 
deavoring to  assign  what  I  believe  to  be  the  reason  for  this 
sad  discrepancy.  Is  it  because  the  people  of  this  Church 
have  been  lacking  in  intelligence  and  culture  ?  Is  it  because 
they  have  ever  undervalued  their  power,  the  power  of  in- 
telligence and  culture  ?  Is  it  because  they  have  failed  to  see 
the  eounection  between  a  living  aggressive  Church  and  au  edu- 
cating Church  ■?  Is  it  because  they  have  been  too  blind  to 
discern  au  effect  which  may  be  read,  as  it  were,  upon  the 
very  sky  and  all  aro\md  us,  that  tlie  Church  which  educates 
most,  extends  widest  the  foundations  of  her  power  and 
holds  most  firmly  in  her  grasp  the  generations  which 
are  to  come  ?  No,  sir,  it  is  for  none  of  these  reasons.  It  is 
because — and  let  us  speak  it ;  I  desire  to  make  a  clean 
breast  of  the  nuitter ;  no  one  is  accused ;  I  am  simply 
speaking  of  what  has  been  in  my  judgment  our  failure  in 
the  past,  viewed  as  a  branch  of  the  Church  Catholic  in  this 
great  land — it  is  because  we  have  held  to  theory  and  ab- 
stract ideas  upon  this  subject,  when  the  great  and  pressing 
realities  of  the  hour  have  demanded  action,  action  at  our 
hands.  It  is,  moreover,  because  we  have  listened  very 
much  to  the  vaguenesses,  to  the  delusions,  to  the  great 
promises,  to  the  ingenious  flatteries  of  what  is  known  as 
the  common  Christianity  of  the  country.  Why,  sir,  the 
effete,  thejdemoralized,  the  disintegrated  Puritanism  of  the 
day,  which  has  parted  from  every  proper  aud  safe  guaran- 
tee of  a  positive  faith,  which  is  alioat  itself  and  would  put 
everything  else  in  religion  afloat  with  it,  has  gone 
through  this  land  glorifying  our  popular  education,  and 
why  ?  Because  it  was  universal ;  not  because  it  was  Chris- 
tian. And,  sir,  the  Old-World  infidelity  of  the  Continent  of 
Europe  that  has  rolled  in  on  us  like  darkening  waves  of  a 
darkeniug  sea  of  an  old  Ufe,  that  has  flowed  in  the  wake  of 
that  same  effete  Puritanism,  has  cried  everywhere,  that  this 
education  is  to  be  glorified  because  it  is  popular,  and  be- 
cause it  is  universal,  and  not  because  it  is  permeated  with 
any  positive  christian  influence.  Here  is  where  our  fault 
ias  lain ;  we  have  not  had  the  moral  courage,  the  back- 
bone, to  stand  up  at  our  firesides  and  in  the  pulpits  and 
protest  against  this,  as  required  by  every  principle,  in  my 
judgment,  and  by  every  hope,  and  by  every  instinct  of  the 
Church  of  Christ. 
Now,  sir,  I  have  stated  what  I  believe  to  be  our  faith,  and 


what  I  know  to  have  been  our  practice ;  and  I  have  under- 
taken to  give  in  a  few  words  the  reason  why  there  has  been 
this  fearful  discrepancy  between  them.  I  know  I  am  tread- 
ing upon  what  appears  to  many  to  be  delicate  ground. 
But  I  may  not  stop  here  without  a  few  words  more  on 
another  important  aspect  of  this  questiou.  There  are 
minds  among  us  who  in  spite  of  all  the  facts  of  the  age  in 
which  we  live  and  the  condition  of  our  country  education- 
ally, still  seem  to  believe  that  it  is.unwi.se  to  make  any 
strong  assertion  of  the  Church's  true  position  on  this  ques- 
tion. They  hold  to  the  principle,  but  they  doubt  the  ex- 
pediency of  asserting  that  principle  in  any  practical  form. 
They  are  averse  to  any  apparent  direct  ecclesiastical  influ- 
ence— to  the  exercise  of  any  such  influence  in  the  work  of 
educating  the  children  of  this  laud — aud  why  ?  I  can  .sym- 
pathize with  their  feeling  to  a  certain  extent,  and  yet  I  be- 
lieve it  is  a  feeUug  that  ought  not  to  be  listened  to,  and 
should  not  be  allowed  any  practical  sway  in  this  matter. 
They  feel,  judging  from  a  great  deal  of  experience  in  the 
past,  that  this  question  of  ecclesiastical  influence  (as  it  is 
called)  in  education,  has  a  narrowing  and  repressing  influ- 
ence. It  depends  entirely  upon  the  quarter  whence  this  in- 
fluence com.es.  It  depends  entirely  upon  the  manner  in 
which  this  influence  is  exercised.  It  is  a  question  of  degree 
and  quaUty.  We  all  know  how  Austria  has  but  i-ecently 
shaken  off  that  priestly  domination  that  so  long  interfered 
with  a  free  education  in  that  empire.  We  all  believe  that 
Spain  amid  the  throes  of  revolution  is  going  to  do  the  same 
thing.  Those  who  are  well  informed  upon  the  subject  know 
that  France  chafes  this  hour  under  the  Jesuit's  sway  over 
the  education  of  the  masses.  No  wonder  that  those  coun- 
tries and  every  country  that  has  been  so  situated  and  under 
the  ecclesiastical  influence  of  the  sort  which  they  have  felt, 
should,  under  the  rising  tide  of  modern  liberty,  reject  aud 
trample  under  foot  that  kind  of  influence.  But  I  submit 
that  we  are  charged  with  an  influence.  We  are  the  admin- 
istrators and  servants  of  the  Church  that  will  wield  auotlier 
influence  than  that.  Why,  sir,  the  genius  and  life  of  this 
Church  as  certified  by  her  history  for  three  hundred  years, 
are  as  widely  apart  from  Sectarianism  as  from  Popery.  May 
I  affirm  what  every  member  of  this  House  will  assent  to,  that 
this  Church  dreads  the  torpor  of  despotism,  whether  spirit- 
ual or  iutellectual,  as  much  as  she  dreads  the  anarchy  of  an 
over-wrought  individualism  ?  No,  sir,  it  belongs  to  the 
geuius  and  life  of  this  Church,  it  is  incorporated  into  her 
framework,  it  has  come  to  us  from  our  fathers  in  the  faith, 
naturally,  easily,  spontaneously  to  make  room  for  the  de- 
velopment of  a  free  intelligence  in  every  quarter,  and  a 
many-sided  culture.  In  her,  the  life  of  the  individual  mem- 
ber and  the  fife  of  the  whole  body  meet  and  are  reconciled. 
There  is  no  antagonism  of  necessity  there.  I  speak  the 
language  of  the  history  of  this  Church.  I  recall  what  she 
has  done  for  the  English  people  to  whom  she  has  supplied 
the  very  props  and  buttresses  of  Eugland's  greatuess,  be- 
cause she  has  been  the  mistress  of  knowledge  and  the  guide 
from  a  fettered  intellect  in  that  land.  She  rejoices  in  and 
loves  every  impulse  toward  aUj  educated  reason ;  she  re- 
joices with  a  joy  unfading  over  every  real,  not  sham,  ad- 
vance of  human  knowledge.  And  she  proposes  to  devclope, 
to  educate  the  individual,  not  by  absorbing  him  into  the  or- 
ganic life  of  the  Church,  nor  on  the  other  hand  by  wasting 


108 


that  organic  life  in  the  auarchy  of  individual  impulse,  but  by 
gathering  up  these  two  co-oriliuate  forces  which  the  great 
Head  of  the  Church  intended  to  move  on  together,  each 
supplying  to  the  other  guidance,  support,  and  vitality. 
While  she  holds  such  pi'inciples  as  these,  it  is  impossible,  in 
the  nature  of  the  case  impossible,  that  she  shall  ever  fetter 
the  free  course  of  human  intelligence  or  hinder  its  whole- 
some development.  If  there  be  any  great  moral,  if  there 
be  one  great  fact,  that  looms  up  from  the  past  of  this 
Church  and  her  present,  it  is  this,  that  she  seeks  peace  and 
order  through  liberty ;  she  seeks  for  jliberty  through  and 
under  law  ;  and  she  seeks  for  the  foundations  of  law  in  the 
righteousness  of  God  as  exemplified  in  the  mission  to  our 
world,  of  the  Son  of  Man. 

Now,  sir,  holding  these  convictions  as  I  do,  holding  them 
with  an  earnestness  greater  than  I  am  able  to  express,  the 
fruit  of  long  and  deliberate  conviction  on  this  subject,  I 
venture  to  call  upon  this  House  not  to  dispose  of  this  im- 
portant subject,  not  to  turn  away  from  it,  until  they  shall 
have  put  upon  record  a  declaration  in  words  of  suitable  em- 
phasis and  .solemnity,  that  we  bejieve  that  it  belongs  to  the 
organic  and  corporate  work  of  the  Church  of  Christ  to  pro- 
mote the  Clu'istian  education  of  her  children  not  less  than 
to  promote  the  great  work  of  missionary  extension.  The 
two,  sir,  are  co-ordinate.  We  have  suffered,thus  far  because 
we  have  attempted  the  latter,  and  we  have  not  fortified  and 
held  the  position  by  education  which  we  have  taken  by  our 
missionary  zeal.  I  will  not  detain  the  House  longer.  I  beg 
to  offer  this  resolution  to  be  appended  to  those  ofifered  by 
the  Committee  on  Christian  Education ;  and  from  its  nature 
and  significance,  I  think  the  proper  place  for  it  would  be 
the  first  in  the  order  of  those  resolutions,  as  it  does  not  con- 
template any  practical  measure,  but  simply  the  declaration 
of  a  principle — that  principle  to  which  my  remarks  have 
tended. 

Resolved,  That  this  House  hereby  declares  its  conviction 
that  the  Church  ought  to  consider  the  Christian  Education 
of  her  children  as  a  work  which  she  is  bound  to  promote  in 
her  organic  corporate  capacity  and,  as  of  co-ordinate  im- 
portance with  her  missionary  work. 

Mr.  : — Have  we  rescinded  the  rule  that  limits 

U3  to  ten  minutes,  or  have  we  extended  it  ? 

The  President  : — I  was  about  to  mention  with  ref- 
erence to  that  point,  that,  after  the  announcement  made 
by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Littlejohn,  last  evening,  when  this  sub- 
ject was  introduced,  I  considered  that  the  House  was 
consenting  to  his  occupation  of  the  time  beyond  that — 
assenting  by  general  acquiescence  in  listening  to  the 
able  and  eloquent  address  which  he  has  made  upon  this 
subject. 

Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin  : — I  have  no  sort  of  desire  to 
speak  more  than  ten  minutes  nor  do  I  suppose  I  should 
speak  so  much.  I  have  prepared  no  speech  upon  this 
subject ;  I  had  not  expected  to  say  a  word  upon  it ;  and 
of  course  I  cannot  be  expected,  even  if  it  were  in  my 
power  to  make  great  preparation,  to  speak  with  any 
eloquence.  I  propose  to  look  at  the  matter  simply  in  a 
practical  manner ;  and  I  propose  to  speak  upon  it  sim- 
ply in  a  practical  way.  As  to  the  resolutions  which  have 
been  ofiered,  I  agree  with  them  so  far  as   I   understand 


them.  As  to  the  last  resolution  offered  [by  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Littlejohn]  I  see  nothing  to  object  to  in  them.  The 
Christian  education  of  our  children  is  put  into  the  hands 
of  this  Church  ;  we  ought  to  attend  to  it ;  but  it  seems 
to  me  to  be  put  upon  extraordinary  and  strange  grounds 
as  it  is  now  presented.  I  hardly  know,  as  it  has  been 
presented  to  us,  what  is  meant  by  Christian  education. 
I  thought  at  one  time  it  was  presented  in  such  a  way 
that  it  would  include  all  sorts  of  instruction.  If  I  under- 
stood the  gentleman,  nothing  could  be  separated  from 
Christian  education — that  we  are  to  teach  our  children 
Arithmetic,  Geography,  and  the  classics,  and  they  could 
not  be  separated  from  a  Christian  education.  I 
agree  that  it  most  certainly  belongs  to  this  Church 
to  give  a  Christian  education  to  all  our  children. 
But  the  position  taken  is  that  if  our  children  want  to 
learn  any  trade  or  handicraft,  they  must  learn  it  in  our 
schools — to  be  shoemakers,  tanners,  or  whatever  it  be  ; 
and  if  they  wish  to  be  good  lawyers,  we  must  furnish 
them  all  the  means,  because  it  is  all  a  part  of  Christian 
education.  The  common  school  system  wliich  is  exploded 
before  us  proposes  to  teach  certain  other  things ;  it  does 
not  propose  to  give  a  Christian  education.  And  that 
is  the  iault  that  is  found  with  it.  It  leaves  out  the  whole 
sphere  of  Christian  education.  God  forbid  I  should  say 
anything  against  giving  it  to  our  people, — but  why  should 
I  come  here  to  say  anything  against  other  people  doing 
good  ?  If  I  am  not  misinformed,  if  I  am  not  under  a 
wrong  impression,  about  the  character  and  career  of  the 
late  venerable  Bishop  of  Pennsylvania,  Alonzo  Potter, 
he  was  a  man  who  took  the  deepest  and  strongest  inter- 
est in  the  general  education  of  the  country  ;  not  confin- 
ing his  whole  heart  and  soul  to  what  could  be  done 
within  the  limits  of  his  own  Church.  Was  he  wrong  ? 
If  Presbyterians  and  all  the  Puritan  sects  are  effete  and 
demoralized,  yet,  with  all  their  effeteness  and  demoral- 
ization we  leave  the  whole  public  school  system  of  the 
country  to  them  to  carry  on,  and  confine  ourselves  to 
our  own  limits,  they  will  get  an  advantage  over  us — 
precisely  the  advantage  which  it  has  been  allowed  they 
have  ;  for  we  have  been  told  that  those  who  educate  the 
people  of  the  country  will  have  the  future  generations  ot 
the  country.  And,  if  I  understand  the  proposition, 
it  is  to  settle  ourselves  in  hostility  to,  and  not  to  take  any 
sympathy  with,  others.  I  think  it  is  a  very  bad  policy. 
If  that  is  the  ground  upon  which  it  is  placed,  I  am  op- 
posed to  it.  And  I  believe  our  Church  is  not  growing 
exclusively  by  simply  developing  itself  and  educating  its 
own  children.  I  had  hoped  our  Church  might  bring 
many  others  into  its  fold  from  without.  I  find  the  Church 
has  made  progress  upon  the  population  of  the  country 
— that  where  twenty  years  ago  there  were  one  hundred  . 
communicants  in  this  Church  to  ten  thousand  population, 
there  are  now  nearly  one  hundred  and  fifty  to  every  ten 
thousand  population.  We  have  encroached  upon  the 
population.  I  rejoice  in  that  progress.  I  would  lay 
hold  of  everything  that  would  help  us  on  in  that  progress. 


109 


Let  us  by  all  means  give  a  full  Christian  education  to 
every  child  in  our  Church,  and  I  would  add  as  lull  an 
education  as  we  can  give  in  every  profession ;  but  that  wc 
are  bound  organically  to  act  as  a  corporate  body  to  go  into 
all  this  work,  all  the  minuteness  of  education,  I  doubt. 
At  the  same  time  let  us  do  all  we  can.  I  doubt  whether 
we  cannot  do  more  for  our  Church  by  preaching  the 
Gospel  and  giving  a  Christian  education,  than  we  can 
by  using  the  same  funds  and  energies  in  those  other 
fields.  But  let  us  do  all  we  can;  let  us  have  colleges, 
higher  schools,  and  seminaries ;  and  let  us,  if  possible, 
surpass  the  colleges  and  schools  of  other  denominations 
in  this  country.  I  shall  rejoice  in  it,  and  I  think  it  will 
be  a  great  advantage  to  this  Church.  Ido  not  therefore 
dissent  from  the  purposes  and  aims  of  these  resolutions  ; 
but,  if  I  understand  the  grounds  upon  which  they  have 
been  put,  I  do  disisent  from  some  of  those  grounds.  I 
think  wc  are  an  aggressive  Church,  an  encroaching 
Church ;  I  think  our  grand  business  is  preaching  the 
Gospel ;  the  more  of  all  those  other  agencies  that  we  can 
command,  the  better. 

Rev.  ^X.  F.  Adams  : — I  would  like  to  say  a  few  words 
upon  this  subject,  especially  upon  that  part  which  relates 
to  the  education  of  the  children  of  the  south.  It  was  not 
my  intention  to  say  anything  upon  this  or  any  other 
subject  that  should  (ome  up  before  this  Convention. 
Thus  far  I  have  not  done  so.  IVIy  mind  was  only  changed 
by  the  report  of  the  chairman  of  the  committee  upon  the 
subject  of  Christian  Education,  yesterday  evening,  and 
the  speech  that  followed  it.  Up  to  that  time  I  felt  more 
than  an  alien  and  more  than  a  foreigner  in  what  I  had 
before  believed  to  be  the  common  househo.d  of  faith. 
I  have  been  suffering  from  that  keen  disappointment 
which  a  man  feels  when  he  is  wounded  where  his  afi'ec- 
tions  are  the  strongest.  If  I  know  my  own  heart,  they 
are  strongest  in  that  which  marks  the  advancement  and 
the  glory  of  his  Church.  That  disappointment  was  oc- 
casioned by  what  I  have  seen  transpiring  in  this  council, 
and  in  this  country.  For  three  years  last  past,  I  have 
taught  with  all  my  heart,  with  all  my  mind,  that  the 
Church  was  one,  that  the  boundary  line  that  inclosed 
one  part  inclosed  every  part,  that  its  divided  waters 
stricken  asunder  by  no  hand  of  man,  but  by  the  hand  of 
God  Himself  flowed  together  in  one  unbroken  current 
again, — that  the  banner  of  Christ  went  on  undisputed, 
unburdened  by  any  shock  of  discord.  This  was  my  im- 
pression, these  were  my  feelings,  and  I  was  disappointed, 
sir.  It  was  my  opinion  that  all  my  teaching  had  been 
false,  that  it  was  a  malignant,  deceitful  and  cruel  peace, 
in  which  there  was  no  reality ;  and  I  was  only  shaken  in 
this  conviction  by  the  report  of  that  committee,  and  by 
the  speech  which  was  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Vir- 
ginia. Nay,  not  by  these  but  by  the  feeling  reception  which 
was  accorded  to  the  speech  by  this  House,  for  I  expected 
all  that  from  him — from  a  man  where  wisdom  and  elo- 
quence and  learning  descend,  as  if  by  inheritance,  from 
father  to  son,  the  utmost  stretch  of  these  cannot  exceed 


our  expectations.  1  am  thankful  to  Almighty  Cod  that 
this  conviction  was  shaken,  and  that  it  was  entirely  eradi- 
cated by  the  manner  in  which  that  report  was  received, — 
the  manner  in  which  that  speech  was  heard.  Therefore 
I  and  others  here  rejoice  that  we  have  been  thrown  back 
into  the  arms  of  the  Church,  already  filled  with  the  living 
fervor  of  our  own  teaching.  If  there  should  be  any  in- 
quiry made  here  why  I  should  have  had  these  views, 
and  thoughts,  I  can  give  reasons  which  no  one  man  upon 
this  floor  can  answer.  And  Ido  not  thus  presumptuously 
throw  myself  before  the  ability,  and  the  Icai'ning,  and 
the  age  of  this  House  trusting  in  ray  own  ability.  I  have 
learned  long  smce  where  is  our  strength — that  it  is  in 
God  and  in  His  truth.  I  rejoiced  to  hear  the  words  that 
were  spoken  by  the  gentleman  who  first  called  for  the 
attention  of  this  House  and  spoke  of  the  duty  of  the 
Church,  the  duty  of  the  hour.  I  have  listened  for  weeks 
to  addresses  for  Chinese,  for  Japanese,  and  for  Canni- 
bals in  Central  Africa,  and  for  the  Indians,  but  not  one 
woi'd,  so  help  me  God,  have  I  heard  concerning  the 
lambs  of  our  own  household,  the  children,  the  offspring 
of  the  Church's  own  womb.  Is  not  this  enough  to  shake 
our  conviction  in  this  truth  ?  We  have  heard  these 
things,  and  a  Ijurning  indignation,  too  profound  for  utter- 
ance, has  stilleii  our  hearts  when  we  heard  every  woe 
but  our  own,  when  we  listened  to  that  Catholic  and 
Universal  charity  wliich  went  around  the  whole  belted 
globe,  so  diflused  and  so  attenuated  that  it  was  invisible, 
affecting  nothing  anywhere,  but  touching  ever}'  place. 
I  ask  you  to  bear  with  me.  I  am  speaking  what  I  be- 
lieve to  be  true.  If  I  speak  unseemly,  pardon  me.  But 
just  reverse  the  situation ;  place  yourself  in  the  same 
position  ;  look  upon  your  churches  burned  down  to  the 
ground,  or  marred  and  blackened  ;  look  upon  your  altars 
burned  and  desecrated  ;  look  at  your  homes  with  their 
desolate  hearths  and  the  weeping  forms  around  them  of 
thqse  you  love ;  look  at  those  unspeakable  woes  and 
griefs,  and  sufferings  which  have  brought  a  whole  Church 
into  keen  and  living  sympathy  with  that  great  passion  of 
our  Lord  in  His  dark  struggle  in  Gethsemane  ;  and  then 
imagine,  if  you  please,  the  gentlemen  from  Virginia, 
Alabama,  Louisiana,  and  South  Carolma,  asking  you  to 
make  speeches  for  the  Chinese,  whose  stone  wall  two 
centuries  ago  was  prophetic  of  that  stupid,  isolated  civil- 
ization which  has  marked  her  among  the  kingdoms  and 
Empires  of  the  world — to  make  speeches  for  the  un- 
tamed and  the  untamable  savages  of  the  wilderness, 
against  whom  we  can  show  ten  sorrows  to  one — asking 
you  to  make  speeches  for  Cannibals  in  Central  Africa, 
to  the  neglect  of  your  own  children,  the  children  of  your 
own  household,  those  whom  you  are  bound  by  the  law 
of  God  and  by  your  own  position  to  defend — and  what 
would  be  your  answer  if  on  such  a  subject  you  could 
speak  at  all  ?  What  would  you  say  ?  "The  man  that 
taketh  not  care  of  his  own  household  is  worse  than  an 
infidel,"  and  so  have  we  thought  of  you. 
Mr.  Fairbanks. — As  a  member  of  that  committee 


110 


which  has  brought  in  this  report,  I  propose  to  speak  of 
the  practical  bearing  of  the  first  resolution,  which  was 
for  the  purpose  of  raising  funds  for  education  at  the 
South.  I  do  not  propose,  upon  the  present  occasion,  to 
endeavor  at  all  to  arouse  the  sympathy  of  this  House  by 
any  pictures  of  desolation.  I  feel  that  the  time  of  this 
House  is  too  precious  to  do  more  than  give  a  practical 
suggestion  in  reference  to  such  aid  as  can  be  afforded  for 
the  special  object  proposed  by  the  committee.  In  refer- 
ence to  a  country  whose  accumulated  capital  of  centuries 
has  been  swept  out  of  existence,  it  is  not  necessary  to 
say  that  such  a  country  is  poor.  The  South  has  been 
regarded  as  a  wealthy  country.  It  has,  as  a  Church  and 
as  a  people,  in  all  its  relations  been  a  part  of  this  com- 
mon country,  and  has  contributed  liberally  to  all  the 
institutions  of  the  country.  Yet  the  time  has  come  when 
we  are  prostrated.  It  is  only,  I  hope,  a  temporary  pros- 
tration. It  is  a  calamity  which  has  overtaken  us ;  our 
capital  has  been  swept  from  us;  we  hope  in  time  to  be 
able  to  accumulate  a  new  capital.  But  there  is  a  gener- 
ation passing  before  your  eyes ;  that  is  the  generation  of 
sons  and  daughters  of  parents  who  have  been  educated, 
and  who  have  now  the  pain  of  seeing  their  children 
growing  up  around  them,  while  they  are  unable  to  give 
them  sucli  an  education  as  they  have  themselves  received. 
I  know  nothing  can  be  so  great  a  calamity  as  that  the  her- 
itage of  our  children  should  be  ignorance.  We  may  be 
content  to  submit  to  privations,  and  to  perform  any  kind 
of  labor  which  may  be  presented.  But  there  is  a  thing 
which  we  are  not  able  to  do — that  is,  to  educate  our 
children.  This  generation  is  unable  to  educate  their 
children,  and  time  will  not  wait.  The  boys  will  soon 
pass  beyond  the  period  when  they  can  be  educated,  anil 
they  will  be  required  to  take  their  places  in  society  with- 
out an  education ;  and  the  Church  will  sulTer  largely  by 
the  withdrawal  of  an  educated  class  from  its  councils. 
It  is  with  that  particular  reference  that  this  commission 
has  been  proposed  by  this  committee,  in  order  to  give 
that  temporary  aid  which  is  such  a  crying  want  on  the 
part  of  the  people  of  the  South.  We  come  forward 
here  and  make  this  statement — not  in  the  way  of  an  ap- 
peal to  you — but  in  the  way  of  presenting  facts  upon 
which  you  can  draw  your  own  conclusions.  We  ask 
nothing ;  we  simply  state  these  facts — facts  that  will  ap- 
peal to  the  heart  of  every  Christian  Churchman,  whether 
it  is  or  is  not  his  duty  to  remove  a  grievance  so  terrible 
to  the  people  of  the  South.  The  statistics  have  been 
read  in  the  report.  1  am  not  aware  that  in  the  southern 
dioceses  there  is  more  than  one  single  Church  institution 
that  is  carried  on  directly  under  the  control  of  the 
Church.  There  are  institutions  in  which  clergymen  of 
the  Church  exert  a  certain  amount  of  Church  influence; 
but  I  know  of  only  one  Chuich  institution  which  is  un- 
der the  Church's  control,  and  carried  on  under  Church 
regulations  in  all  respects.  That.  I  need  not  say,  is  an 
institution  with  which  I  am  connected — the  University 
of  the  South — which  was  designed  before  the  war  to 


meet  the  wants  of  a  higher  education,  but  is  now^organ- 
ized  on  the  lower  ground  of  providing  for  the  education 
of  boys  not  yet  prepared  to  enter  upon  that  great  work. 
Now  in  what  way  can  this  commission  be  effected  ?  It 
seems  to  me  the  most  effective  way  is  through  the  plan 
proposed  of  having  a  secretary  connected  with  that  com- 
mission in  each  diocese,  some  person  well  known,  ap- 
pointed with  the  concurrence  of  the  Bishop,  who  can 
aiibrd  to  that  commission  directly,  information  upon  the 
question  of  fact  as  to  what  aid  any  section  of  the  coun- 
try can  atford  to  give.  This  statement  is  made  by  one 
Bishop.  He  says  there  are  fifteen  young  men  in  his  di- 
ocese who  are  anxious  to  be  educated  for  the  ministry, 
but  who  have  not  the  means,  nor  has  he  the  means. 
One  presbyter  wishes  to  afford  aid  in  the  education  of 
a  young  man  for  the  ministry.  A  certain  school  is 
named.  The  young  man  can  raise  a  certain  sum,  but 
lacks  say  one  hundred  and  fifty  dollars.  That  amount 
can  be  applied  in  that  way,  and  every  dollar,  gentlemen, 
will  go  directly  for  the  purpose  of  educating  some  meri- 
torious young  man  belonging  to  some  family  in  a  section 
of  the  country  where  his  influence  will  be  enduring.  In 
former  times  the  young  men  of  the  South  were  sent  to 
the  Korth.  It  was  deemed  necessary  to  have  a  classical 
and  professional  education.  A  professional  education 
was  common  through  the  whole  South.  But  it  is  now 
important  that  these  young  men  sTiould  be  educated  at 
home,  because  their  influence  as  churchmen  is  largely 
enhanced  at  home,  and  also  for  the  reason  that  the  ex- 
pense of  coming  and  going  would  defray  half  the  ex- 
pense of  an  education  at  home.  We  can  educate  them 
much  more  cheaply  there  than  they  can  be  furnished 
with  an  education  at  the  JS'orth.  We  can  furnish  a  first- 
class  institution  for  three  hundred  dollars  a  year,  and 
cover  all  expenses.  We  cannot  send  our  sons  North  to 
be  educated  at  the  present  enhanced  rates ;  but  we  can 
educate  them  at  home,  and  this  commission  is  the  only 
practical  thing  that  can  aid  us. 

Rev.  HiKAM  W.  Beeks,  of  Wisconsin : — In  relation 
to  this  matter  of  education  in  the  Church,  it  is  observed 
here  that  education  is  the  one  grand  form  of  popular  influ- 
ence that  is  being  used  on  all  hands  for  the  accomplish- 
ment of  the  purposes  had  in  view.     It  is  admitted  even 
by  the  gentleman  from  Bennsylvauia  who  spoke  in  op- 
position to  the  first  address  on  the   resolution    that   the 
common  school   system  is  not  a  Christian   system.     It  is 
gloried  in  by  many  of  its  advocates  for  the  same  reason. 
Now,  without  attempting  to  condemn  that  system,  with- 
out undertaking   to  say  aught  against   those  who   have 
advocated  and    maintained  it,  I  think  we  are  warranted 
and   to    be   justified     in    this     General     Convention's 
saying,  that  it  does  not  answer  our  purpose — that  it  is  a 
system  in  conflict  with  our   system — that  our   children 
educated  in  this   system  are  taught  to  disregard  the  sys- 
tem of  the  Church  in    the   arrangement  of  the  Prayer 
Book  for    the  celebration  of  Divine  worship,  which  is 
part  of  the  system  of  training  the  young,  aad  part  of  the 


Ill 


system  by  which  sponsors,  parents,  and  rectors  can  re- 
deem and  fulfill  their  promises  made  before  God.  Ex- 
cept for  one  day  in  seven,  when  children  are  educated 
in  the  public  school,  at  the  hour  of  Divine  service  they 
must  go  off  in  one  direction  ;  and  if  the  [larenta  are  care- 
ful observers  of  the  order  of  the  Church,  they  start  off 
in  another  direction,  the  one  to  school  and  the  other  to 
religious  duties.  Now,  can  this  go  on  during  the  period 
when  the  minds  of  children  are  forming  their  habits 
without  practically  influencing  the  direction  of  their  con- 
viction and  of  their  lives  ?  Universal  popular  education 
in  the  broad  sense  is  a  grand  thing — not  educating  the 
sons  and  daughters  of  the  wealthy  and  high-born  alone, 
but  the  sons  and  daughters  of  all  the  people.  As  long 
as  that  is  accepted  as  a  fine  thing  and  reduced  to  prac- 
tice, the  Church  must  take  up  the  work  of  educating  her 
children,  or  the  system  takes  up  that  work,  and  does  it 
without  her  in  a  manner  that  is  for  her  disadvantage. 
I  appeal  to  the  rectors  on  this  floor  whether  they  ever 
took  in  their  arms  a  little  one  to  baptize  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
listened  to  the  obligations  assumed  by  the  sponsors  with- 
out a  sad  feeling  that  the  future  performance  would  illy 
correspond  with  the  breadth,  the  solemnity  of  that  en- 
gagement? And  this  is  not  so  much  the  fault  of  spon- 
sors and  parents  as  it  is  our  fault.  If  there  were  no 
system  of  general  education,  our  duties  would  be  differ- 
ent in  the  premises ;  but  this  system  exists,  and  there 
are  two  grand  reasons  why  we  must  adopt  a  system  of 
education  that  will  correspond  with  the  system  of  our 
Church,  if  we  would  maintain  our  footing :  the  first  is 
that  it  is  necessary  for  self  defence,  and  the  second  is 
that  this  is  an  aggressive  Church.  To  save  our  own  we 
must  do  this ;  and,  if  we  would  gather  from  those  beyond 
our  fold,  we  must  do  this.  I  believe  that  the  mind  of 
the  Church  is  ready  for  these  measures  of  universal  edu- 
cation. I  have  no  doubt  of  it.  It  is  perfectly  surprising 
to  find  what  a  general  distrust  there  is  in  every  com- 
munity, of  the  popular  system  of  the  present  day  as  re- 
spects the  morals  and  manners  of  the  children,  and  how 
ready  they  will  accept  any  opportunity  that  offers  a 
better  condition  of  things  and  a  better  result.  It  is  not 
sufficient.  I  think  the  indications  are  very  plain  in  this 
land,  on  every  hand,  that  this  is  not  a  suihcient  education 
which  addresses  itself  to  the  intellect  alone.  As  the  re- 
sult of  that  system  we  are  to-day  more  threatened  with 
the  sublime  impudence  of  the  so-called  liberalism  that 
challenges  nearly  everything  in  Revelation,  and  in  the 
teaching  of  the  Church,  than  we  are  by  Romanism.  We 
have  as  the  result  of  this  a  Christ  without  a  sacrifice,  and 
a  Christianity  without  a  sacrament,  and  a  faith  without 
an  object,  as  embodying  the  most  popular  form  of  reli- 
gious tendency  that  reveals  the  current  of  the  age.  And 
in  place  of  this  form  of  education  that  deals  with  the  in- 
tellect alone,  we  must  inaugurate  and  institute  a  form 
of  education  (as  well  put  by  the  gentleman  who 
first  occupied  the  floor  on  this  subject)  that  will  deal 
with  every  aspect  of  the  nature  of  the  child,  teaching  it 


to  observe  all  things  that  Christ  has  commanded ;  and  He 
has  promised  in  this  work,  as  well  as  in  the  great  work 
of  preaching  the  Gospel,  to  be  with  us  always  even  unto 
the  end  of  the  world. 

Rev.  Dr.  Tustin,  of  Michigan : — I  wish  to  speak  to 
the  resolution  in  hand,  and  in  speaking  to  that  T  shall 
offer  a  reason  why  we  should  take  a  vote  upon  that  reso- 
lution that  will  make  my  remarks  pertinent.  1  propose 
to  state  a  reason  why  we  should  bring  this  resolution  to 
a  vote.  I  suppose  there  is  no  assemldy  of  two  hundred 
and  eighty  men  anywhere  to  be  found,  as  on  the  floor  of 
this  House,  more  intelligent  or  more  thoughtful,  who 
might  be  considered  as  a  whole  a  body  of  educated  men, 
if  not  technically  educated,  yet  practically,  self-educated, 
thoughtful,  deliberative  men ;  and  no  body  of  men 
probably  can  be  found  who  have  thought  moie  on  the 
subject  of  education,  or  become  more  familiar  with  it 
through  the  press,  all  the  various  forms  of  the  press, 
books,  articles,  pamphlets,  circulars, — all  means  by  which 
information  can  be  imparted.  I  think  we  are  prepared 
to  state  our  firm  convictions  so  well  brought  out  and 
stated  in  these  resolutions.  My  reason  for  urging  a  vote 
upon  these  resolutions  is  that  we  are  now  within  three 
and  a  half  days  of  three  weeks  of  deliberation  in  this  as- 
sembly. I  take  this  opportunity  of  bringing  this  matter 
to  the  notice  and  recollection  of  the  House,  and  hope 
we  shall  at  an  early  moment  fix  the  day  of  adjourn- 
ment. 

Judge  Hugh  Shefpey  : — Amid  the  surging  waves 
of  desolation  that  have  swept  over  large  portions  of  our 
country  within  the  last  six  or  eight  years,  the  diocese 
which  I  have  the  honor  in  part  to  represent  has  been,  I 
am  sure,  a  sufferer  to  an  extent  equal  to  that  of  any 
portion  of  our  afflicted  country  ;  and  I  do  not,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, desire  to  underrate  the  wants  of  my  native  home, 
my  beloved  diocese.  But,  sir,  I  came  to  this  Conven- 
tion, I  trust,  animated  by  a  conservative  feeling  and  the 
fraternal  affection  of  a  churchman  of  theCleneral  Church. 
I  did  not  come  here,  sir,  expecting  to  find  antagonism 
again.st  me  or  mine.  I  knew  that  I  should  find  extend- 
ed to  me  and  to  those  with  whom  I  am  associated,  the 
right  hand  of  Christian  and  kindly  fellowship ;  and  I  am 
profoundly  gratified  above  all  to  be  able  to  say  that 
every  thing  that  I  have  seen — every  manifestation  of 
spirit  that  t  have  seen  developed  here,  has  but  con- 
vinced me  the  more  that  the  Church  of  my  choice  and 
love  is  stronger  than  party,  more  powerful  than  sections. 
[Applause]. 

Mr.  President,  I  love  this  Church  with  all  the  strength 
of  unutterable  love.  I  am  from  Virginia,  and  I  trust 
that  in  saying  that  I  am  from  Virginia,  F  may  be  per- 
mitted to  say  that  I  but  echo  the  sentiments  of  that 
united  diocese,  when  I  say  the  utmost  earnestne.ss  of 
her  nature  is  concentrated  in  her  devotion  to  the 
Church. 

Permit  me  then  to  say  that  this  being  the  feeling  of 
those  that  I  represent,  however  our  wounds  may  be 
gaping,  and  our  desolations  may  bo  thickened   upon  us, 


u^ 


we  still  feel  that  you  of  the  more  favored  portions  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  everywhere  sympathize 
with  us,  and  that  you  do  feel  kindly  towards  us,  and 
that  to  the  extent  that  God  may  give  you  the  means,  you 
will,  without  my  coming  as  a  mendicant  or  a  suppliant 
to  your  doors,  come,  as  generous,  noble-minded  Christian 
gentlemen,  and  Churchmen,  to  the  relief  of  the  common 
heritage  from  a  common  calamity.     [Applause]. 

The  following  resolutions  were  then  acted  upon  sepa- 
rately and  adopted. 

Message  No.  27,  was  received  from  the  House  of  Bish- 
ops, asking  for  the  returnof  Message  No.  15. 

The  House  then  proceeded  to  the  next  order  of  the 
day,  Mr.  Taylor's  resolution  concerning  alterations  in 
the  Prayer  Book,  namely, 

Jiesnlvcdy  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  make  any  alteratiuns 
in  the  last  standard  edition  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer. 

Mr.  Taylor,  of  Virginia : — I  do  think,  sir,  that  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer  is  enshrined  in  tiie  affections 
and  memory  of  us  all,  and  needs  no  advocacy  at  my 
hands.  Therefore  I  do  not  rise  to  make  a  speech  nor  to  sup- 
port the  resolution.  The  resolution  sufficiently  explains 
itself.  If  there  are  those  in  this  Convention  who  say 
there  are  defects  in  it,  the  resolution  affords  the  oppor- 
tunity for  all  such  to  offer  their  propositions  upon  that 
subject,  which  1  desire  to  meet  with  the  antagonistic 
resolution  that  the  adoption  of  any  counter-resolutions  by 
this  Convention  is  inexpedient.  I  do  not  think  that  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer  is  absolutely  perfect.  It  is 
the  work  of  men,  but  the  work  of  men  who,  I  have  been 
taught  to  believe  and  feel,  were  almost  Divinely  inspir- 
ed. In  this  day  of  novelty  and  love  of  change,  this  de- 
sire to  uproot  all  ancient  institutions,  I,  for  one,  prefer 
to  stand  by  this  Book  of  Common  Prayer  which  was 
given  to  us  by  our  fathers'  fathers,  and  I  am  afraid  my- 
self, and  I  am  afraid  to  trust  the  members  of  this  Conven- 
tion, to  make  a  change,  and  I  hope  therefore  it  will  be 
the  pleasure  of  this  body  to  declare  that  it  is  inexpe- 
dient at  this  time  to  make  any  change  in  the  standard 
edition  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer. 

Judge  Battle,  of  North  Carolina : — I  believe  the 
gentleman  from  Virginia  does  not  exceed  me  in  reverence 
for  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer.  I  am  as  much  oppos- 
ed to  any  alteration  as  he  or  any  other  gentleman  can 
possibly  be.  I  had  the  honor  of  concurring  with  my 
venerable  friend  from  Maryland  [Judge  Chambers]  in 
opposing  every  proposition  that  was  brought  forward 
for  the  purpose  of  changing  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer  ;  but  still  I  am  not  entirely  satisfied  with  the 
policy  of  adopting  the  resolution  that  is  offered  by  the 
gentleman  from  Virginia.  I  have  not  heard  as  yet  any 
resolution,  nor  any  motion,  nor  any  proposition  of  any 
kind,  emanating  from  any  gentleman  of  this  Convention, 
tending  towards  a  change  in  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer.  Until  some  such  indication  appears  in  this 
body,  it  seems  to  me  that  we  would  rather  throw  out  to 
the  world  the  idea  that  we  were  afraid  that  the  Book  of 
Common  Prayer  was  about  to  be  changed.     It  it  is  for 


that  reason^  although  I  concur  fully  in  the  sentiment 
which  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  entertains,  that  I 
shall  feel  myself  compelled  to  vote  against  his  resolution. 
If  I  thought  there  was  any  proposition,  either  introduc- 
ed or  about  to  be  introduced,  for  the  purpose  against 
which  his  resolution  seems  to  be  aimed,  then  I  would 
heartily  concur  with  him ;  but  it  does  seem  to  me  that 
by  adopting  that  resolution  we  publish  to  the  world  that 
our  Book  of  Common  Prayer  is  about  to  be  tampered 
with;  and  for  that  reason    I  object  to  the  resolution. 

Hon.  S.  B.  RuGGLES : — We  have  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  the  Prayer  Book  a  question  of  the  greats 
est  possible  magnitude  concerning  the  very  foundation 
of  our  religion ;  to  wit,  to  ascertain  what  is  our  creed, 
whether  the  Nicene  Creed  is  genuine  or  mutilated.  It 
is  a  question  of  the  greatest  possible  magnitude,  lying 
at  the  foundation  of  our  faith — a  question  which  agitates 
the  world,  and  which  is  the  subject  of  proximate  inter- 
course between  our  Church  and  the  great  Reformed 
Church  of  the  East-  That  question  has  gone  to  a  com- 
petent committee,  a  question  which  our  scholars  and  the- 
ologians are  very  competent  to  consider  in  all  its  great 
maguitude.  If  they  should  decide  that  the  Nicene  Creed 
in  the  Prayer  Book  is  not  truly  the  Nicene  Creed  of 
antiquity,  sanctioned  by  the  General  Council,  they  will 
give  us  a  report  to  that  effect,  and  spend  the  next  three 
years  in  collecting  information  upon  the  subject.  We 
have  made  a  reference  of  that  subject  to  the  committee. 
To  pass  this  resolution  would  be  very  inconsistent  with 
that  action. 

Rev.  Dr.  Howe: — The  gentleman  from  Virginia  in 
stating  his  point  put  into  his  remarks,  though  it  is  not  in 
his  resolution,  that  it  is  inexpedient  at  this  time. 

Mr.  Taylor  : — All  that  this  General  Convention 
can  do  will  be  to  make  a  declaration  for  itself  Any 
resolution  of  this  Convention  will  not  be  binding  on  the 
ne.xt  Convention  ;  itis  only  the  action  of  this  body. 

On  motion  of  Judge  Battle,  the  resolution  was 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Prayer  Book. 

The  House  then  proceeded  to  the  consideration  of  the 
third  order  of  the  day,  Dr.  Mahan's  report  from  the 
Committee  on  Canons,  for  the  amendment  of  Canon  XI, 
Title  1,  sections  1  and  2,  so  as  to  read  as  follows : 
Canon  ,17,  of  persons  not  ministers  of  t/ris  Church,  officiating 
in.  any  congregation  thereof. 

No  minister  in  charge  of  any  congregaiion  of  this  Cliurcli, 
or,  in  case  of  vacancy  or  absence,  no  Cluneliwarden  Ves- 
trymen, or  Trustees  of  the  congregation  .'^liall  peiniit  any 
person  to  officiate  therein,  witljout  sufficient  evidence  of  his 
being  duly  licensed  or  ordained  to  minister  in  this  Church. 

danon  XI,  Title  I,  sections  1  and  2,  is  hereby  repealed  : 
Provided,  that  such  repeal  sliall  not  effect  any  case  of  a 
violation  of  said  canon  committed  before  this  date;  but 
such  case  shall  be  governed  by  the  same  law  as  if  no  such 
repeal  had  taken  place. 

Rev.  Dr.  Crane  : — I  move  an  amendment  of  the  first 
section.  I  make  the  motion  for  the  purpose  of  reliev- 
ing that  canon  from  some  objections  that  have  already 
been  made.     I  wish  to  place  that  section  upon  ground 


113 


entirely  distinct  from  any  reference  to  the  question  of  or- 
ders outside  of  this  Church,  whether  valid  or  invalid,  per- 
fect or  iniporfect,  I  wish  to  place  it  simply  upon  the  ground 
of  a  police  regulation  for  the  purpose  of  defending  our 
standard  of  faith  and  our  prescribed  mode  of  worship. 
We  have  a  standard  of  faith,  and  a  prescribed  mode  of 
worship,  and,  in  order  that  we  shall  secure  that  to  all 
our  congregations,  we  must  have  control  over  the  per- 
sons who  are  to  officiate  ;  and  I  wish  simply  to  place 
it  on  that  ground.  .As  to  the  word  olhciate,  we  need  not 
discuss  that.  I  understand  it  to  be  simply  this — a  man 
ofHciates  when  he  stands  forward  and  discharges  a  duty 
in  favor  of  the  olHce  he  professes  to  hold.  We  have  the 
word  olliciate  in  the  eleventh  canon  now  ;  and  its  inter- 
pretation as  given  there  may  be  given  here.  I  propuse 
to  amuiid  this  first  section  by  striking  out  all  after  the 
word  being,  and  adding,  suljject  to  the  jurisdiction  of 
this  Church,  or  of  some  Church  in  communion  there- 
with, and  then  to  add  a  proviso,  "  provided  nothing  here- 
in shall  be  so  construed  as  to  affect  the  case  of  lay-read- 
ers." I  am  satisfied  with  the  title  as  given  to  the  can- 
on ;  but  I  wish  the  first  section  to  read  as  I  have  pro- 
posed. 

Rev.  A.  A.  M.\KPLE,  of  Pennsylvania  : — Will  the  gen- 
tleman accept  tlie  amendment,  "  licensed  lay-readers?" 

Rev.  Dr.  Ckani:  : — I  am  sorry  that  I  cannot  accept 
that ;  but  I  think  it  is  usual  everywhere,  at  any  rate  in 
that  section  of  the  country  whfere  I  know  anything  about 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  for  persons  to  be  oc- 
casionally called  in  as  lay-readers,  who  have  not  a  license. 
They  come  in  for  a  present  emergency ;  and  I  see 
no  reason  why  a  respectable,  intelligent  man  may  not. 
in  an  emergency,  read  the  service  in  our  Church  ;  and  it 
is  perceived  that  no  person  is  allowed  to  do  that  unless 
he  is  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Church. 

Mr.  CnirucniLi. : — With  reference  to  the  propo.sed 
amendment  to  the  aniendmcnt,I  wish  simply  to  bring  for- 
ward a  difficulty  that  is  found  in  an  existing  fact  in  my 
own  parish.  There  were  several  chapels  connected 
with  the  parish-church  which  were  attended  by  the 
minister  of  the  church,  who  has  recently  resigned. 
In  the  absence  of  the  rector  of  that  parish,  those  chap- 
els have  no  one  to  attend  to  them.  I  have  been  in- 
formed, since  I  have  been  in  attendance  upon  the  Con- 
vention, that  a  layman  of  the  parish  has  opened  a 
church  by  rendering  lay  service  there.  It  would  be  im- 
po.ssible,  at  this  time,  for  him  to  have  procured  any  li- 
cense. It  is  an  emergency  tliat  would  not  be  provided 
for  by  the  canon  if  that  were  introduced.  I  hold  that 
it  would  be  unwise  to  place  so  many  restrictions  around 
those  things.  That  sort  of  emergency  cannot  be  pre- 
vented. We  have  laymen  who  render  most  efficient 
service,  by  doing  much  reading  of  this  kind.  I  hope  no 
restriction  will  be  placed  over  them. 

Rev.  Dr.  Pbtbkkin,  of  Virginia: — I  do  not  w-ish  to 
make  a  speech ;  but  only  rise  to  say  that  I  hope  this 
subject  will  be  fully  ventilated  before  we  make  a 
15 


change.  I  do  not  doubt  that  there  are  persons  better 
acquainted  with  it  than  I  am,  and  I  rise  to  beg  them  to 
give  whatever  information  they  can  in  regard  to  the 
origin  and  the  practical  working  of  the  canon.  Some 
of  us  know  that  about  thirty  or  forty  years  ago  this 
canon,  under  another  number,  was  absolutely  abrogat- 
ed by  the  clerical  and  lay  Deputies ;  that  the  House  of 
Bishops  refused  concurrence  with  the  abrogation,  and 
gave  their  reasons,  which  were  very  good  and  very  sat- 
isfactory. I  would  like  to  know  whether  the  canon,  as 
it  now  stands,  has  wrought  an}'  evil  in  the  Church,  or 
whether  it  has  not  been  sufficient  to  cover  all  cases.  I 
think  it  is  generally  understood  that  it  answers  the  pur- 
poses for  which  it  was  originally  enacted  ;  and  I  there- 
fore earnestly  hope  that,  before  an}'  alterations  shall  be 
made,  which  may  seem  to  be  only  verbal  emendations 
but  will  alter  the  whole  canon  in  its  spirit  and  intent, 
somebody,  better  acquainted  than  I,  will  give  some  ac- 
count of  its  origin. 

Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin: — I  have  no  objection  in  practice  that 
I  know  of  to  the  canon,  as  proposed  by  the  committee.  I 
think  that  this  Convention  has  perfect  power  to  pass  such 
a  canon.  It  is  perfectly  right  for  the  memorialists  to  ask 
for  the  abrogation  of  the  old  canon.  They  sought,  perhaps, 
something  different  from  this,  but  it  is  for  the  Convention 
to  say  what  el.sc  they  will  suljstitute  for  the  old  canon.  It 
is  perfectly  clear,  to  my  mind,  that  this  Convention  could 
not  alter  the  doctrine  of  the  Church.  As  far  as  regards  the 
doctrine  with  respect  to  the  ministry  of  the  Church,  that 
is  contained  in  the  articles ;  and  we  cannot  alter  the  .articles, 
nor  any  part  of  them,  witliont  t.aking  tlirco  years.  And  an 
interpretation  of  any  of  the  articles  would  be,  to  all  intents 
and  purposes,  au  alteration  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Church. 
But  I  do  not  understand  that  the  proposition  of  the  com- 
mittee, or  the  proposed  amendment,  interferes  with  the 
doctrines  of  the  Church  with  regard  to  the  ministry. 
This  is  a  police  regulation  of  a  practical  matter.  We  are  to 
look  at  it  as  a  practical  matter.  I  have  no  wish,  as  a  cler- 
gyman of  this  Church,  to  depart,  in  practice,  from  either  of 
the  methods  here  propo.sed.  If  any  body  else  has  a  desire 
to  depart,  the  Convention  has  a  right  to  check  him.  But 
I  claim  the  right  to  hold  and  believe  that  the  Presbyterian 
Churcli  of  Scotland  is  a  true  Church  of  Christ,  and  that  the 
Cliurch  of  Kome  is  a  true  Communion  of  Christ,  though 
corrupt.  So  may  the  Greek  Church  be  a  true  Church  of 
Christ,  though  irregularly  organized.  So  with  regard  to 
the  ministry,  it  is  perfectly  competent  for  this  Church  to 
keep  irregularly  ordained  ministers  from  her  borders.  This 
is  entirely  for  tlie  ministry  of  this  Church.  I  should  still 
hold  myself  at  perfect  liberty  to  maintain,  until  the  articles 
of  this  Church  are  altered  or  dillereutly  interpreted  by 
proper  authority,  the  same  opinion  1  have  always  held.  I 
hold  that  the  canon  docs  not  teach  that  doctrine  at  all ; 
and  if  it  did,  it  would  be  void,  because  we  cannot  interpret 
the  doctrine  of  this  Church  by  a  canon.  I  am  pleased  with 
one  thing  that  has  happened.  I  have  sometimes  referred 
to  iKsages  .IS  authority  in  this  Church,  when  canons  seemed 
to  touch  absurdities.  1  have  been  taught  by  the  Committee  on 
Canons,  in  regard  to  even  a  constitutional  matter,  that  u.sage 
will  overrule  the   constitution ;  that  where  the  constitution 


114 


has  not  allowed  a  thing  to  be  done,  they  say  it  may  be  done 
because  usage  has  settled  that  it  may  be  done,  in  other 
cases.  In  regard  to  lay-readers,  it  is  not,  perhaps,  under- 
stood by  many  that  our  canons  do  not  require  any  lay- 
readers  to  be  licensed,  except  candidates  for  orders.  I 
therefore  object  to  the  word  licensed  being  introduced. 
Although  we  may  refer  to  usage  when  laws  exist,  when  we 
are  legislating,  we  ought  to  provide  for  exactly  what  we 
mean.  If  we  do  not  mean  to  include  lay-readers,  let  us 
say  so. 

Mr. : — There   is   one   point   thM  has  been 

overlooked.  The  canon,  as  it  now  stands,  does  not  prevent 
the  vestry  or  clergyman  from  loaning  the  church  to  another 
congregation;  but,  I  understand,  the  new  canon,  as  now 
read,  does  prevent  the  minister  or  vestry  from  loaning  the 
church. 

Rev.  Mr.  Marple  : — The  reverend  gentleman  [Dr.  Good- 
win] has  told  us  that  no  lay-readers  are  under  restraint, 
except  those  seeking  orders.  It  is  on  that  account  that  I 
desired  the  honorable  gentleman  from  Rhode  Island  to  in- 
corporate the  word  "licensed."  The  lay-readers  are  under 
no  authority,  whatever.  It  touches  precisely  the  case  of 
the  gentleman  who  spoke  of  a  parish  that  had  been  desti- 
tute of  a  pastor  for  a  loug  time.  I  think  that  it  is  all  im- 
portant that  lay-readers  should  be  hcensed. 

Rev.  Dr.  Aoams  : — I  have  a  few  remarks  to  make  to  this 
Convention  in  reference  to  this  matter.  In  the  first  place, 
I  will  say  that  we  have  one  great  deficiency — Hugh  Davey 
Evans  is  dead,  and  our  greatest  canonist,  Murray  HoSinan, 
who  ought  to  be  on  the  Committee  on  Canons,  is  not  here. 
I  will  say  that  I  think  there  is  a  point  which,  if  Evans  or 
Murray  HoS'man  were  here,  would  be  brought  out  to  this 
Convention,  and  which  will  settle  the  thing,  if  this  Conven- 
tion will  take  it  into  account.  I  would  call  the  attention  of 
the  Convention  to  the  fact  that  ecclesiastical  canons  ought 
to  be  interpreted  ecclesiastically.  If  you  have  a  legal  word 
you  interpret  it  legally ;  if  you  have  an  ecclesiastical  word 
you  interpret  it  ecclesiastically.  Now,  I  do  not  profess  any 
peculiar  knowledge  in  this  matter  of  canonical  lore.  I  pro- 
fess to  know  one  little  thing,  that  is,  that  the  word  person 
is  an  ecclesiastical  word.  It  means  a  man  who  professes  to 
be  a  clergyman  ;  and  I  think  that  point  comes  in  here  dis- 
tinctly, that  the  word  person  is  an  ecclesiastical  word,  that 
it  distinctly  says,  in  ecclesiastical  phrase,  "  no  man  that 
claims  to  be  a  clergyman  in  any  shape  or  form  has  a  right 
to  come  into  any  church  or  congregation  of  this  Church 
and  officiate  in  it,  except  he  has  shown  satisfactory  evidence 
that  he  is  a  persona  of  our  Church."  I  think  the  canon 
expressly  says  with  regard  to  any  one  whatsoever  who  pro- 
fesses to  be  a  clergyman,  a  persona,  a  person  in  ecclesiasti- 
cal phrase,  that  he  is  not  to  officiate  except  he  has  produced 
evidence  that  he  is  a  minister  of  our  Church,  and  that  he 
has  produced  this  evidence  to  the  priest  in  charge,  or,  in 
case  of  vacancy  or  absence,  to  the  church-wardens,  vestry, 
or  trustees  of  the  same.  That  is  the  meaning  of  the  canon, 
I  assert,  ecclesiastically.  There  is  another  matter  that  will 
strengthen  this  view,  that  is  to  say,  the  word  officiate, 
means  to  act  as  an  officer  in  virtue  of  his  office,  to  perform 
the  official  acts  of  another.  That  is  the  definition  of  Web- 
ster. This  canon  expressly  declares  that  it  is  impossible  for 
clergymen  professing  to  be  clergymen  of  any  other  denom- 


ination or  Church,  to  officiate  in  any  church  belonging  to 
tills  Church,  except  they  have  produced  evidence  that  they 
are  minister.s  of  our  Church.  But  I  will  admit  very  clearly 
and  candidly  that  the  word  person  has  changed  its  mean- 
ing, and  that,  in  the  apprehension  of  a  good  many,  it  signi- 
fies anybody  whatsoever — it  signifies  an  individual;  and 
therefore  it  is  understood  by  us  that  no  individual,  clerical 
or  lay,  shall  be  permitted  to  do  so  and  so ;  and  in  reference 
to  this  we  have  a  matter  introduced  about  lay-readers,  not 
for  the  sake  of  any  reality  about  the  thing,  but  for  the  sake 
of  taking  the  canon  up  and  destroying  it.  Now,  I  think 
that  the  Connnittee  on  Canons,  if  Murray  Hoffman  were 
among  them  [laughter],  would  have  introduced  this  point 
that  I  have  noticed.  I  believe  there  are  men  as  able  as 
Murray  Hoffinan,  as  intellectual  as  Murray  Hoffman,  but  in 
his  way  1  understand  as  a  canonist  there  is  no  man  so  great 
in  the  Church  [voices : — State  the  point  again ;  we  don't 
hear.  Rev.  Dr.  Adams,  speaking  louder: — ]  The  point 
has  been  stated  clearly.  I  will  make  the  gentlemen  hear 
before  I  am  done.  I  would  say  that  this  word  pemona  is 
an  ecclesiastical  word,  which  moans  a  clergyman  in  the  ec- 
clesiastical use,  and  which  means  so  undoubtedly  in  the 
phrase  in  this  canon.  If  we  had  such  a  man  as  Murray 
Hoffman  in  this  House  or  on  that  committeCj  that  matter 
would  have  been  understood.  I  would  say  that  this  word, 
persona,  or  person,  has  perhaps  in  the  ordinary  sense 
changed  its  meaning,  and  that  it  means  an  individual ;  and 
that  therefore  very  good  honest  men  in  the  Church  are  in- 
cHned  to  read  the  canon  as  meaning  "no  individual  shall 
be  permitted  to  officiate."  I  think  that  would  be  changing 
the  meaning  of  the  canon  by  a  word  having  lost  its  use. 
I  think  that  the  best  way  with  regard  to  any  canon  whatso- 
ever, is  not  to  make  such  extensive  alterations  as  the  Com- 
mittee on  Canons  have  made  upon  this  point,  but  simply  to 
bring  out  the  intent,  exactly  that  which  has  been  under- 
stood at  all  times  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  canon,  and  that 
can  be  done  by  a  simple  alteration  which  I  shall  propose  as 
an  amendment.  Now  I  would  say  a  little  with  reference  to 
this  matter  of  lay-readers ;  and  the  question  comes  in  upon 
that  ground  that  person  means  anybody.  I  thinli  the  mat- 
ter of  lay-readers  may  be  laid  aside,  and  that  the  proper 
method  is  not  to  bring  it  in  with  reference  to  this  matter, 
but  to  make  it  the  subject  of  special  enactment,  putting 
them  under  laws  and  rules  which  are  righteous  and  just, 
but  not  by  enactment  bring  them  into  a  cauon  which  has 
reference  to  the  clergy.  That  is  a  sufficient  answer  to 
everything  that  is  said  with  reference  to  lay-readers. 

Mr.  Cornwall — made  a  motion  that  on  Tuesday,  after 
rehgious  services,  the  House  should  adjourn  sine  die;  which 
motion  was  not  acted  upon,  the  hour  of  adjournment  hav- 
ing arrived. 

FIFTEENTH  DAY'S  PKOCEEDINGS. 

Friday,  Oct.  23,  1868. 

The  House  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

Morning  Prayer  was  .said  by  the  Rev.  J.  S.  Hanckel 
of  South  Carolina,  and  the  Rev.  Dr.  Crane  of  Missis- 
sippi. 

The  Benediction  was  pronounced  by  the  Bishop  of 
Wisconsin. 


115 


The  journal  of  yesterday's  proceedings  was  read  and 
approved. 

On  motion  of  a  Deputy  from  Vermont,  a  committee 
of  two  was  appointed  to  confer  with  the  House  of  Bish- 
ops with  regard  to  the  time  of  adjournment. 

On  motion,  the  time  of  sessions  was  fixed  from  9  to  4, 
without  recess. 

Mr.  Cornwalrs  resolution,  the  House  of  Bishops  con- 
curring, tliat  this  House  adjourn  on  Tuesday  next  was 
agreed  to,  and  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  ad- 
journment. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight — presented  a  report  from  the  Com- 
mittee on  Canons,  with  reference  to  message  No.  19, 
from  the  House  of  Bishops,  proposing  an  amendment 
of  article  3  of  the  Constitution,  by  the  omission  of  the 
following  words:  "in  all  cases  the  House  of  Bishops 
shall  signify  to  the  Convention  their  approbation  or  dis- 
approbation, the  latter  with  reasons  in  writing,  within 
three  days." 

The  Committee  reported  a  resolution  of  non-concur- 
rence with  said  proposed  amendment,  for  the  reason 
that  it  was  deemed  inexpedient.  Dr.  Haight  remarked 
that  the  effect  of  the  adoption  of  the  amendment  pro- 
posed by  the  Bishops  would  be  to  relieve  the  House  of 
Bishops  from  an  obligation  to  signify  to  this  House  their 
approbation  or  disapprobation  within  three  days,  as  the 
custom  has  been  for  a  long  time.  The  committee  are 
of  the  opinion  that  in  the  present  state  of  the  two  Houses, 
the  House  of  Bishops  sitting  with  closed  doors  and  this 
with  open  doors,  it  would  be  almost  impossible  to  ascer- 
tain what  is  going  on  in  that  House,  if  this  amendment 
were  adopted.  It  is  therefore  expedient  not  to  annul 
this  provision.  The  reported  resolution  of  the  com- 
mittee was  then  adopted. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight,  from  the  Committee  on  Canons, 
made  report  No.  3,  with  reference  to  message  No.  16 
from  the  House  of  Bishops  proposing  an  amendment  in 
section  16,  Canon  ^3,  Title  I.,  to  the  effect  that  consulta- 
tions of  the  bishops  with  reference  to  the  resignation  of  a 
bishop  should  hereafter  be  bj'  correspondence.  Consid- 
ering the  importance  of  the  business,  the  committee 
were  of  the  opinion  that  it  was  not  expedient  to  concur 
in  said  amendment,  and  for  the  reason  that,  in  all  im- 
portant matters,  it  is  expedient  that  the  bishops  should 
not  act  separately  but  should  meet  for  mutual  consulta- 
tion and  deliberation.  The  report  of  the  committee 
was  adopted. 

Mr. ,  from  the  special  Joint    Committee  on 

the  republication  of  the  early  journals  of  the  Conven- 
tion, reported  that  there  had  been  up  to  a  recent  date 
the  same  general  apathy  with  respect  to  their  work  ex- 
isting throughout  the  Church,  hindering  the  early  suc- 
cess of  their  labors ;  that  there  had  not  been  found  a 
publisher  willing  to  undertake  the  publication  of  the 
second  volume ;  that  the  stereotype  plates  of  the  early 
journals  of  the  Convention  had  been  purchased  by  one 
of  the  committee  at  a  cost  of  $250.     The   committee 


reported  resolutions  (which  were  adopted)  to  the  effect 
that  the  secretary  of  the  House  be  authorized  to  make 
the  purchase  of  the  stereotype  plates  of  the  early  jour- 
nals of  the  Convention  at  a  cost  not  to  exceed  $250  ; 
that  the  Committee  on  republication  be  continued  as 
now  constituted,  with  the  power  to  enlarge  its  numbers. 

A  communication  was  received  from  the  registrar  of 
the  Convention  inquiring  as  to  the  extent  of  his  powers 
with  reference  to  seemingly  conflicting  provisions  of 
one  of  the  canons. 

Rev.  Dr.  Littlejohn,  from  the  Domestic  and  For- 
eign Missionary  Society,  and  acting  jointly  under  the 
direction  of  the  House,  reported  the  following  resolu- 
tion: 

Resolved,  the  House  of  Bishops  concurring,  that  an 
amendment  be  made  to  article  4  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  Domestic  and  Foreign  Missionary  Society  of  this 
Church,  so  that  it  shall  hereafter  read  as  follows :  "  To 
the  Board  of  Missions  shall  be  entrusted  the  considera- 
tion of  the  practical  work  of  the  Church,  and  the  super- 
vision of  its  general  Missionary  operations,  with  power 
to  establish  Missionary  stations,  appoint  missionaries, 
make  appropriations  of  money  therefor,  and  regulate  the 
conducting  of  Missions,  fill  any  vacancies  in  their  num- 
ber which  may  occur,  and  also  to  enact  all  by-laws  which 
they  may  deem  necessary  for  their  own  government  and 
the  government  of  their  committee.  Provided,  always, 
that  in  relation  to  organized  dioceses  having  bishops,  the 
Board  shall  regulate  the  number  of  missionary  stations, 
and  with  the  consent  of  the  bishop  shall  select  the  sta- 
tions. 

"  The  Bishop  and  Standing  Committee  of  each  diocese 
may  appoint  substitutes  from  the  same  diocese  for  such 
members  of  the  Board  as  may  be  unable  to  attend  its 
meetings." 

Rev.  Dr.  Littlejohn  : — There  are  but  two  changes 
proposed  by  this  amendment  in  the  article.  Those 
changes  are,  first,  to  insert  after  the  words  "Board 
of  Missions  shall  be  entrusted,"  the  words  "  the  prac- 
tical work  of  the  Church  ;"  secondly,  the  Bishop  and 
the  standing  committee  of  each  diocese  may  appiont 
substitutes  from  the  same  diocese  for  such  members  ol 
the  board  as  may  be  unable  to  attend  these  meetings. 
The  changes  proposed  in  this  amendment  have  been 
agreed  to  unanimously  by  the  Joint  Committee,  con- 
sisting of  the  Committee  on  Canons,  and  the  Domestic 
and  Foreign  Missionary  Society.  The  proposed  amend- 
ment was  adopted. 

The  Pres't — announced  as  the  Committee  on  adjourn 
ment;  Rev.  Mr.  Bliss,  of  Vermont,  and  Mr.  Cornwall, 
of  Kentucky. 

Dr.  Shattuck,  from  the  Committee  on  Clerical  sup- 
port, reported  resolutions  which  with  various  accepted 
amendments,  are  as  follows  : 

Resolved,  That  in  the  opinion  of  this  House,  it  is  a  solemn 
and  urgent  duty  of  each  and  all  of  the  lay  members  of  tin- 
Church  to  make  systematic  and  constant  etforts  for  the  bel- 
ter maintenance  of  the  clergy  and  of  their  families. 

Resolved,  That  this  House  approves  of  and  recommends 
the  estabUshment  of  incorporated  societies  for  the  relief  of 
the  widows  and  orphans  of  deceased  clergymen,  as  well  as 
of  those  clergymen  who  are  disabled  by  age  or  infirmity. 


116 


and  tliat  in  tliis  or  some  otlier  way,  each  parish  should  be 
making  prorisiou  tor  its  own  clergy. 

Hcxu/.Ked,  Tliat  the  lay-members  of  this  House  recommend 
that  alter  due  notice  a  collection  be  made  annually  during 
the  seasons  of  Advent,  Christnuis,  or  Epipliany  in  erery  par- 
ish, and  that  one-half  the  sum  thus  gathered  shall  be  ajipro- 
priated  by  the  wardens  and  vestrymen  in  some  way  towards 
the  liciter  maintenance  of  the  clergy  of  the  parish  or  dio- 
cese, and  the  other  half  shall  be  sent  to  the  Treasurer  of  the 
Board  of  Domestic  Missions,  to  be  by  them  distriljuted 
amongst  the  clergy  of  the  Southern  and  Missionary  Dioces- 
es ol  the  Church. 

A'fio/iicd,  That  the  Comndttee  on  Aid  to  the  Clergy  be 
directed  to  confer  with  the  Bishops  and  clergy  of  this  city 
and  vicitiity,  and  to  ask  that  measures  may  be  taken  so  that 
the  attention  of  the  people  be  called  to  the  pliysical  and 
spiritual  destitution  in  the  Southern  Dioceses,  and, that  col- 
lections be  made  on  Sunday  next. 

Jicxoli'ed,  Tliat  the  House  of  Bishops  be  respectfully  re- 
quested to  present  prominently  in  a  Pastoral  Letter',  the 
suffering  and  wants  of  the  clergy  of  this  Church  in  many  por- 
tions of  our  country,  and  the  vital  nepessity  of  prompt 
and  ethcient  relief. 

Jiesolvcd,  Tliat  a  conmiittee  of  one  from  each  diocese  be 
appointed  by  the  President,  and  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  each 
one  to  call  the  attention  of  the  brethren  in  his  diocese  to 
this  important  matter  and  to  the  measures  recommended  by 
this  House. 

J.  W.  Van  NosTRANn. 
Charlpjs  Breck. 
Gkorge  C.  Shattuck. 
Samukl  B.  Ruggles. 

The  resolutions  were  then  adopted. 

Rev.  Dr.  Hare— offered  a  resolution  to  the  effect 
that  the  action  of'  the  House  making  the  Provincial  sys- 
tem the  order  of  the  day  for  this  day,  be  rescinded,  and 
that  the  same  subject  be  the  order  of  the  day  for  Mon- 
day next,  with  the  view  of  having  printed  the  proposed 
canons  in  relation  to  that  subject. 

Attention  was  called  to  page  141  ol  the  Journal  of 
1855,  to  the  message  from  the  House  of  Bishops,  inform- 
ing the  House  of  clerical  and  lay  deputies  that  the  for- 
mer House  had  non-concurred  witli  the  latter  in  the 
adoption  of  the  canon  for  a  Federate  Council,  for  the 
reason  that  it  was  too  late  in  the  session  for  the  due 
consideration  of  the  subject.  It  was  to  be  feared  that 
the  same  message  upon  that  subject  will  be  sent  back  to 
this  House  if  action  is  now  delayed. 

Kev.  Dr.  Hare — accepted  the  suggestion  that  the 
subject  be  made  the  order  of  the  day  to-morrow  at  1 2 
o'clock. 

Rev.  Dr.  Howe — hoped  that  the  canon  reported  from 
the  Committee  on  Canons  would  be  included  with  the 
canons  reported  by  the  Special  Committee. 

Rev.  Dr.  Hare  :— I  took  it  for  granted  that  it  was 
included. 

Rev.  Dr.  Howe  : — I  move  that  the  order  of  the  day 
for  to-morrow,  be  the  reports  upon  a  Federate  Council 
and  the  Provincial  System. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mulchahky  : — Is  it  fair  to  so  word  the  reso- 
lutions as  to  allow  the  canon  reported  by  the  Commit- 
tee on  Canons  to  take  precedence  ? 

Rev.  Dr.  Howe  : — I  think  it  is  fair,  entirely  fair, 
;ind  nothing  else  will  be  fair.  This  Committee  on  Can- 
ins  has  brought  in  a  canon  upon  the  Federate  Councils. 


They  reported  it  in  the  ordinary  course  of  proceedings,  in 
the  morning,  and  did  not  develope  it  by  a  single  word  ; 
and  when  the  committee  were  unaware,  their  canon  was 
referred  to  the  Special  Committee  It  is  due  to  the 
Committee  on  Canons  that  they  should  have  the  oppor- 
tunity to  present  to  this  House  their  own  ideas,  as  con- 
nected with  their  own  proposals.  We  do  not  care  in 
which  order  the  canons  are  taken  up ;  we  can  move  to 
divide  in  either  case.  But  the  two  things  are  two  sub- 
stantive propositions,  brought  in  by  two  separate  com- 
mittees ;  and  the  Committee  on  Canons  brought  theirs  in 
fii'st,  and  never  had  the  opportunity  fairly  to  develope 
its  merits  before  this  House. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mulchahey  : — I  am  sure  the  gentleman 
will  say,  on  'a  moment's  reflection,  that  that  will  nee- 
essaril3r  introduce  the  discussion  of  the  whole  sub- 
ject. The  first  canon  proposed  by  them  must  nec- 
essarily be  taken  into  consideration  in  connection  with 
the  canon  proposed  by  the  Committee  on  Canons,  be- 
cause the  simple  question  before  us  in  considering  that 
canon  is,  which  of  its  two  forms  will  the  House  prefer. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight  : — I  care  not  how  the  matter  is 
arranged.  But  I  claim  in  behalf  of  the  diocese  which 
I  in  part  represent,  and  of  the  Diocese  of  Western  New 
York,  that  this  matter  which  has  received  their  most 
earnest  consideration,  and  which  they  have  presented 
to  this  House  in  the  form  of  a  memorial  and  in  the  form 
of  a  canon,  should  come  squarely  before  this  House,  and 
not  be  mixed  up  with  other  schemes.  Five  dioceses  come 
here  and  ask  for  relief  upon  a  specific  point.  They  ask 
you  and  implore  you  to  pass  something  like  the  proposed 
canon,  to  give  them  the  relief  which  they  need.  I  claim 
it  is  not  fair  to  take  that  canon  and  mix  it  up  with 
another  canon,  and  bring  this  matter  before  the  House 
in  that  entangled  way. 

Hon.  S.  ^B.  Ruggles  : — I  beg  to  second  the  remarks 
of  myjcolleague  with  all  m}'  heart,  and  I  take  this  mode 
and  opportunity  of  making  it  distinctly  understood  that 
I  am  entirely  in  favor  of  a  Federate  Council  as  propos- 
ed in  the  last  Convention  of  our  diocese,  and  as  reported 
by  the  Committee  on  Canons,  a  Federate  Council  with 
strictly  limited  powers.  I  therefore  hope  the  discussion 
of  that  matter  will  be  separated  from  the  other ;  for, 
if  they  are  confused  together,  both  may  fail  ;  one 
ought  to  pass,  perhaps  both,  but  especially  that  for  a 
Federate  (Council,  provided  it  does  not  contain  within  it- 
self the  features  of  a  synod. 

Rev.  Ur.  Mead: — The  dioceses  presenting  these  me- 
morials have  a  right  to  be  heard  upon  the  matter  pre- 
sented by  this  House.  Under  these  circumstances,  why 
shoulil  we  be  compelled  to  go  into  this  log-rolling  sys- 
tem of  endeavoring  with  a  practical  thing,  to  crowd  in 
upon  us  a  theoretical  thing?  In  the  name  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Canons  and  of  the  Dioceses  of  New  if  ork  and 
Western  New  York,  I  protest  against  this  attempt  to 
take  up  from  the  table  of  this  House  that  which  we  have 
reported  when  referred  to  us  by  the  House,  to  mingle 


117 


it  with  another  action  which,  to  a  great  degree,  is  irrel- 
evant. I  ho()e  that  it  will  be  taken  up  upon  its  merits, 
and  no  attempt  be  made  to  drag  the  Committee  on  Can- 
ons into  a  log-rolling  business. 

Rev.  Dr.  IIaight  : — I  move  to  take  up  immediately 
the  canon  reported  by  the  Committee  on  Canons,  on 
Federate  Councils. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Kev.  Dr.  MuLCHAUEY  : — Has  the  order  of  the  day  [the 
consideration  of  the  canon  reported  by  the  Special  Com- 
mittee, on  the  Provincial  System]  been  rescinded  ? 

The  President  : — That  rescinds  the  order. 

Rev.  Dr.  Howe  : — It  will  be  observed  by  these  who 
will  recur  to  the  journal  of  the  last  General  Convention 
that  a  canon  almost  identical  in  terms  to  this  canon  now 
proposed  was  adopted  by  a  large  majority  of  this  House, 
sent  up  to  the  House  of  Bishops,  and  non-concurred  in 
by  them  for  the  reason  that  it  was  too  late  in  the  session 
to  take  into  consideration  so  grave  a  subject.  That 
canon  has  been  accepted  by  this  House  and  has  been 
since  adopted  or  recommended  to  attention  by  the  Dio- 
cese of  New  York,  and  it  is  upon  the  memorial  of  the 
Dioceses  of  New  York,  Western  New  York,  and  of  Mary- 
land that  the  subject  Wcis  intrusted  to  the  Committee  on 
Canons,  of  which  this  draft  of  the  canon  is  the  result.  It 
was  felt  that  it  was  necessary  that  it  should  be  distinctly 
understood  what  are  the  powers  that  shall  be  exercised 
by  these  federate  Councils,  because  they  might  on  the 
one  hand  trench  upon  the  legislative  powers  of  the  Gen- 
eral Convention  of  the  Church,  or  they  might  on  the 
other  supersede  somewhat  the  present,  and,  as  we  con- 
ceive, essential  functions  of  the  Diocesan  Convention. 
It  was  therefore  esteemed  necessary  that  the  Church  in 
General  Convention  assembled,  should  know  what  is 
proposed  to  be  done  by  this  body  intermediate  as  regards 
tlie  Diocesan  and  the  General  Convention.  That,  as 
you  will  observe,  is  provided  for  in  this  draft  of  the  can- 
on now  befora  you. 

Here  were  received  from  the  House  of  Bishops  several 
messages : — 

No.  15,  (vrrongly  numbered)  Notifying  that  they  had 
adopted  a  resolution  repealing  the  last  clause  of  Section 
1,  Canon  10,  Title  1,  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay 
Deputies  concurring. 

No.  21),  Notifying  that  the  House  of  Bishops  had 
adopted  a  resolution  continuing  the  joint  coinniitteo  on 
the  Italian  Reform  Movement. 

No.  30,  Notifying  that  the  House  of  Bishops  had 
adopted  a  resolution,  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay 
Deputies  concurring,  that  the  vacancy  in  the  office  of 
Historiographer  of  tlie  Protestant  Episcopal  Church, 
occa,sioncd  by  the  death  of  the  lamented  Francis  L. 
Hawks,  LL.  I).,  be  filled  by  the  appointment  of  Kev. 
Wm.  Stevens  Perry  (Secretary  of  the  House). 

No.  31,  Notifying  that  the  House  of  Bishops  had 
concurred  in  the  resolution  communicated  to  them  in 
the  message  No.  27  from  this  House  (amending  the 
third  section  of  Canon  1),  Title  2),  so  as  to  read  "the 
presiding  bishop"  instead  of  "presiding  bishop  of  this 
Church." 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Howe  (resuming) : — I  was  proceeding 


to  say  that  in  the  original  text  of  this  canon  as  present- 
ed to  the  House  by  the  standing  committee  it  is  simply 
interdicted  that  any  such  federate  council  or  convention 
before  the  next  General  Convention,  take  any  determi- 
nate action  upon  any  subject  whatever.  It  was  felt  that 
it  was  necessary  (in  as  much  as  it  had  been  the  princi- 
pal motive  in  the  Diocese  of  Pennsylvania  three  years 
ago  for  asking  for  the  creation  of  such  a  federate  council 
or  convention) — it  was  felt  that  it  might  be  necessary, 
on  the  separation  of  a  great  diocese  where  there  were 
already  fiduciary  endowments  in  the  hands  of  the  con- 
vention, that  there  should  be  some  joint  action  upon 
them,  that  there'should  be  matters  of  legislative  enact- 
ments which  concerned  the  general  interests  of  the 
Church  in  a  State,  on  which  the  convention  should  have 
the  power  to  consult,  and  which  it  would  be  very  im- 
portant to  complete  before  the  session  of  the  next  Gen- 
eral Convention.  To  meet,  therefore,  such  an  exigency, 
it  was  provided  that,  while  (as  it  was  said  in  the  first 
part  of  the  canon)  no  determinate  action  shall  be  had 
by  such  federate  convention  or  council,  but  the  powers 
proposed  to  be  exercised  thereby  are  to  be  submitted 
to  the  next  General  Convention  for  its  approval,  yet 
that  nothing  in  this  canon  shall  be  construed  as  forbid- 
ding any  federate  convention  or  council  from  taking 
such  action  as  they  may  deem  necessary  to  secure  such 
legislative  enactments  as  the  common  interests  of  the 
Church  in  a  State  may  require.  It  was  felt  that  even 
this  little  change  in  our  organic  condition  is  somewhat 
experimental,  that  it  is  launched  out  in  a  new  direction  ; 
and  with  tlie  customary  prudence  of  tliis  Church,  the 
conservative  spirit  by  which  it  has  always  been  per- 
vaded, it  was  thought  important  that  we  should  careful- 
ly experiment,  and,  as  we  come  to  grave  conclusions 
adopt  them  in  the  form  of  fixed  law.  It  was  felt  that 
probably  in  the  e.arly  coming  history  of  this  Church  it 
may  be  needful  to  go  into  the  organization  of  a  provin- 
cial synod,  or  of  what  is  sometimes  called  the  provincial 
system,  and  that  this  association  of  dioceses  in  one  State 
with  these  limited  powers  might  be  regarded  as  an  ex- 
periment somewhat  in  that  direction  answering  the 
principal  exigencies  of  the  Church,  and  preparing  us 
for  sucli  further  advance  as  future  necessities  and  de- 
mands may  require. 

Rev.  Dr.  IIaight  : — I  desire  that  this  House  may  under- 
stand that  this  matter  comes  before  them  at  this  time  not 
upon  the  motion  of  any  infUviduiU  meniber  of  this  House, 
or  of  a  eoimnitteo  of  this  House,  but  it  conies  before  them 
upon  the  memorials  of  those  three  diocese.'*,  emhrauing,  I 
suppose,  at  least  one  fourtti  part  of  all  the  clergy  and  of  all 
the  parishes  of  this  Church.  It  comes  before  them  in  a  me- 
morial or  memorials  which  express  their  deni)erate  judg- 
ment upon  a  siilyeet  wliieli  they  feel  to  be  closely  identilied 
with  their  interests  now  and  tlieir  pioRress  hereafter.  It  is 
my  privilege  and  honor  to  stand  bel'oie  you  as  one  of  the 
De]iutics  from  the  Diocese  of  New  York,  who  arc  instructed 
to  present  their  memorial  upon  this  .sulijeet.  And  I  desire 
to  read  a  very  brief  extract  from  the  report  of  the  commit- 


118 


tee,  charged  with   the   preparation  of  a  memorial  on  this 
subject,  to  this   House,   as  containing  some  views   which 
were  considered  important  by  my  own  diocese,  and  which,  I 
trust,  will  not  be  considered  unimportant  by  the  members 
of  this  Convention.     [Rev.  Dr.  Haight  then  read  from  the 
memorial,  which  set  forth  the  necessity  of  combined  action 
on  the  part  of  the  several   dioceses  into  which  the  original 
Diocese  of  the  State  of  New  York  had  been  divided,  as  to 
tneir  common  interests  in  the  work  of  Christian  education, 
and  missions  within  its  borders,  and  their  common  interests 
in  reference  to  the  property   of  the  Church.]     That  this 
was  the  view  taken  of  this  subject  by  the  Convention  of  the 
Diocese  of  New    York,  is  shown  by  the  plan    which  they 
adopted,  and  by  the  terms  of  the  memorial  which  they  or- 
dered to  be  presented  to  this  House.     It  is  no  paper  scheme 
which  the  Diocese  of  New  York  and  its  sister  dioceses  offer 
you.     It  is  no  plan  conceived  in  the  brain  of  some  recluse 
student,  looking  back  to  the  records  of  the  past  and  specu- 
lating upon  the  future  history  of  the  Church.     It  is  a  prac- 
tical measure,  based  upon  what  we  conceived  to  be  the  real 
wants   of  our    diocese   and  the    integral  portions  of    this 
Church  ;  and  it  is  in  this  light  that  I  hope  this  Convention 
will  view  the  matter.     We  ask  for  the  passage  of  a  canon 
in  precisely  the  same  terms  as  passed  by  the  lower  House  of 
the  General  Couveutioa.     We  were    satisfied  to   take  that, 
because  it  simply  grants  the  express  permission  to  represent- 
atives of  the  five  dioceses  of  the  State  of  New  York  to  look 
each  other  in  the  face  and  ask   what  our  common  wants 
are,  and  how  they  should  be  provided  for.     All  matters   of 
detail  were  expressly  e.xcluded ;  and  I  hope  this  Convention 
will  not  enter  into   the   task  in  details.     It  is  not  proposed 
by  this  canon  to  allow  the  Federate  Council  of  the  State  of 
New  York  to  create  a  constitution  and  to  enact  any  funda- 
mental laws  regarding  their  future  actions  until  that  shall  be 
passed  upon  by  this  House.     We  proposed  to  hold  a  prima- 
ry council.     In  that  primary  council  we  shall  consider  this 
subject,  and  adopt  certain  fundamental  principles,  and,  per 
haps,  a   constitution.     When  that  is  done,  it  comes  up  to 
this  House,  and  if  this  General  Convention  finds  anythiug  in 
that  constitution  or  those  fundamental  rules  at  variance  with 
the  true  spirit  of  this  Church,  at  variance  with  the  true  idea 
of  this  House,  or  the  other  House  of  the  General  Conven- 
tion, of    course  they   will  strike  it  out.     The    only  saving 
clause  is  that,  in  the  mean  time,  we  may  act  together  in  re- 
gard to  matters  of  common  interest,  which    bring  us  into 
contact  with  the  State  Legislature.     I  know  not  how  it  may 
strike  gentlemen  from  other  States,  but  I  do  say  that  this 
matter  of  the  relation  of  the  Church  with  the  State  is  of  a 
very  intimate  and  critical  nature ;  as,  for  example,  we  hold 
all  our  Church  property   in  the  State  of  Now  York  under 
acts  of  incorporation,  passed  by  the  legislature.     Those  acts 
are  changeable,  at   the  will  of  the  legislature.     Who   can 
tell,  in  the  coming  five  or  ten  years,  what  may  be  the  char- 
acter of  the  legislature  of  the  State  of  New  York  ?     I  think, 
for  one,  the  character  of  our  State  legislature,  generally,  is 
not  improving.     I  do  not  think  that  the  tone  of  morality 
and  the  tone  of  religion,  if  you  can  call  it  religion,  at  our 
seats  of  government  is   at  all   improving.     Who   can  tell 
what  efforts  may  be  made  to  crowd  upon  the  Church,  in  the 
laws  of  the  State,  something  she  does  not  want,  and  some- 
thing which  the  Church  may  feel  is  striking  at  the  root  of 


her  liberties  and  power  ?  Every  gentleman  knows  perfectly 
well  that  no  ecclesiastical  court  is  allowed  to  proceed  to  the 
end  of  its  duties,  if  the  respondent  chooses  to  invoke  the 
interference  of  the  civil  authorities,  without  that  civil  au- 
thority interfering.  In  one  case  we  had  ten  injunctions 
served  upon  us  by  the  court.  It  is  very  true  that  it  is  a 
settled  principle  that  the  State  will  not  interfere  further 
than  to  see  that  the  ecclesiastical  proceedings  are  in  accord- 
ance with  your  own  laws ;  but  it  is  a  small  step  from  the 
present  platform  to  another,  which  shall  decide  that  the 
State  shall  look  into  the  ground  of  the  laws  and  decide 
whether  or  not  they  are  conformable  to  their  notions.  I 
dreaded  the  idea  of  the  Church  of  New  York  being  divided 
into  five  separate  portions,  and  left  without  any  bond  of 
union  by  which  it  can  approach  the  legislature  of  the  State 
of  New  York  as  one  body,  and  ask  that  legislature  to  con- 
sider, carefully,  before  presuming  to  interfere  with  what,  if 
not  vested  rights,  are  dear  to  us.  If  there  were  no  other 
ground  than  this,  I  should  be  much  in  favor  of  the  passage 
of  this  canon,  and  should  urge  it  with  all  my  heart.  But 
when  we  look  at  the  subject  of  Christian  education,  and 
how  the  strength  of  the  Church  is  frittered  away  in  respect 
of  united  action  as  to  educatiou,  we  feel  that  it  is  of  great 
importance  that  we  of  the  State  of  New  York  should  be  en- 
abled to  associate  together  with  regard  to  this  subject  and 
also  with  regard  to  the  subject  of  missions.  In  the  north- 
ern part  of  this  State  there  lies  an  important  part  of  the 
country  which  mu.st,  for  a  long  time  to  come,  be  missionary 
ground,  the  missionary  work  in  which  ought  to  be  contrib- 
uted to  by  all  the  dioceses  of  the  State.  With  the  expres- 
sion of  these  views,  I  shall  not  detain  the  House  longer.  I 
implore  the  House  not  to  refuse  to  grant  the  prayer  of  this 
memorial,  unless  they  may  be  impelled  to  do  so  by  consid- 
erations of  the  highest  importance. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mulchahet  : — I  should  be  sorry  to  be  under- 
stood for  one  moment  as  assenting  to  all  tluit  the  reverend 
gentleman  who  has  just  taken  his  seat  has  said.  I  learn 
that  the  Secretary  has  just  heard  from  the  printer,  and  that 
the  canons  [proposed  by  the  special  conuuittee  on  the  pro- 
vincial system]  which  had  been  placed  iu  the  hands  of  the 
printer  are  expected  every  moment,  and  I  do  think  it  is  im- 
portant that  we  should  have  the  canon  in  print.  The  can- 
on, as  amended,  will  be  before  the  House  in  a  few  minutes  ; 
and  I  desire  that  the  canon  proposed  by  the  special  commit- 
tee should  be  considered  at  the  same  time,  ;ind,  I  hope, 
adopted  (for  he  would  be  a  monstrous  father  who  would 
not  have  some  preference  for  his  own  oflsprinj;),  I  desire 
to  call  the  attention  of  the  House  to  the  history  of  this  mat- 
ter for  a  few  moments.  It  comes  before  us  now  by  memo- 
rials from  three  dioceses.  It  came  before  the  last  General 
Convention,  it  will  be  remembered,  by  a.  memorial  from 
the  Diocese  of  New  York ;  and  in  that  memorial  there  was 
embodied  this  resolution  : — 

Resolved,  That  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  Convention  that  a 
Provincial  System,  adapted  to  the  present  position  of  the 
Church  iu  this  country,  should  be  established.  It  therefore 
prays  the  General  Convention  to  make  provision  for  the  or- 
ganization of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  into  provinces. 

That  resolution  passed  the  convention  of  the  Diocese  of 
New  York  before  the  last  General  Convention;  and  the 
matter  was  brouglit  into  the  General  Conventiou  by  the  me- 


119 


niorial  embotlyiug  that  resolution  of  the  diocese.  The  mat 
ter  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Cauous,  and  by  them 
reported  unfavorably  in  the  House.  Subsequent  to  that,  a 
resolution  was  introduced  by  Dr.  Clarkson,  now  the  Bishop 
of  Nebraska,  containing  a  general  Provincial  system,  sub- 
stantially the  same  as  the  lesolutions  afterward  submitted 
by  the  special  committee,  reported  to  this  House.  That 
canon  was  referred  to  a  special  committee  of  thirteen, 
which  special  committee  of  thirteen  eminent,  preeminent 
indeed,  lor  its  learning  and  abiHty,  reported  a  general  canon. 
The  general  canon  passed  the  House,  was  sent  up  to  the 
House  of  Bishops,  and  by  them  sent  back,  with  a  message 
that  it  was  too  late  in  the  session  to  consider  so  important 
a  subject.  The  last  General  Convention  had  been  occupied 
with  this  the  2d,  3d,  4th,  5th,  11th,  and  the  Kith  days  of  its 
session.  After  the  first  five  of  these  si.x  days  had  been  occu- 
pied with  this  subject,  then  a  canon,  substantially  the  same 
as  that  reported  to  this  Convention,  was  again  moved,  and 
a  special  committee  was  appointed  to  take  the  whole  sub- 
ject into  consideration  during  the  recess,  and  to  report  to 
this  General  Convention.  That  committee  of  five,  of  which 
Dr.  Manney  was  chairman,  reported  to  this  Convention  in  a 
very  learned  report,  and  in  the  report  commented  very  ably 
on  the  canon  which  had  been  submitted  to  them,  but  closed 
their  report  with  the  resolution  that  a  special  committee  of 
five  be  appointed  to  consider  and  perfect  a  canon  embody- 
ing the  Provincial  system.  Previously,  however,  to  the  pres- 
entation of  that  report  by  this  special  committee,  the  Com 
mittee  on  Canons  had  reported  to  this  House  a  canon  on 
federate  union ;  and  the  author  of  that  report  felt  it  to  be 
simply  due,  in  courtesy,  to  the  Committee  on  Canons  that 
their  canon  also  should  be  submitted  to  this  special  commit- 
tee. It  was  committed  to  them  in  that  way.  You  see, 
then,  that  this  special  committee  had  the  subject  very  dis- 
tinctly assigned  to  them.  They  had  assigned  to  tliem  a 
canon  reported  by  the  Committee  on  Canons,  and  also  one 
reported  by  the  special  committee  appointed  by  this  House 
with  instructions  to  consider  and  perfect  a  canon  embodying 
the  provisions,  according  to  our  best  judgment,  of  the  mat- 
ter submitted  to  us ;  and  we  endeavored  to  embody  these 
in  two  canons,  the  first  canon  substantially  the  same  as  that 
reported  by  the  Committee  on  Canons,  with  one  or  two  ex- 
ceptions. It  did  seem  to  that  committee,  in  considering 
the  subject  closely,  that  this  general  canon  was  defective, 
jnasmuch  as  it  made  no  provision  for  the  calling  of  a  pri- 
mary convention.  It  does  seem  that,  in  initiating  any  sys- 
tem of  this  sort,  the  General  Convention  should  declare  the 
general  provisions  so  far  as  to  provide  that  the  calling  of 
primary  general  councils  should  be  uniform  in  different 
parts  of  the  country.  This  canon  declares,  in  express  terms, 
what  it  seems  unnecessary  to  declare,  that  the  whole  mat- 
ter should  be  tentative  on  its  face ;  that  nothing  should  be 
done ;  that  while  there  was  a  general  canon  giving  permis- 
sion to  the  dioceses  to  associate  themselves  together 
(which  permission,  we  suppose,  they  would  have  without 
any  such  permissive  canon)  there  was  no  provision  made 
for  the  calling  of  the  first  Federate  Convention  ;  and  the 
whole  matter  was  placed  ostensibly  in  uncertainty,  until  the 
matter  should  be  submitted  to  the  next  General  Conven- 
tion. In  our  canon,  while  recognizing  the  authority  of  the 
General  Convention,  and  while  declaring,  in  express  terms, 


that  all  the  actions  of  the  Federate  Convention  should  be 
in  subordination  to  the  General  Convention,  we  endeavor 
to  initiate  the  matter  in  a  somewhat  more  determined  form. 
If  that  canon  be  adopted,  or  the  canon  proposed  by  the 
committee — and  it  is  for  the  judgment  of  this  House  to  say 
which  is  the  preferable  one — the  second  canon  proposed  by 
the  committee  only  goes  on  to  give  things  their  right 
names.  I  was  going  to  suggest  that  this  plan  of  Federate 
Convention — calling  things  by  unchurchly  names)  for,  after 
all,  it  amounts  to  that),  has  been  tried,  and  found  wanting. 
We  all  know  something  about  the  Eastern  dioceses.  The 
plan  failed  there. 

Hon.  S.  B.  RuGGLES : — I  wish  to  state  to  the  Convention, 
and  to  be  distinctly  understood  that  I  am  wholly  in  favor 
of  this  measure,  absolutely,  without  qualification.  The 
character  of  this  measure  was  very  thoroughly  discussed  in 
the  Diocesan  Convention  of  New  York.  The  measure  first 
proposed  in  that  Convention  made  this  new  body  a  synod 
practically,  gave  it  Provincial  powers.  It  empowered  this 
body  to  consult  on  all  the  matters  pertaining  to  common  in- 
terests of  the  said  dioceses,  and  to  enact  all  laws  pertaining 
thereto  not  inconsistent  with  this  Church.  That  was  a 
province  in  disguise,  not  intentional  disguise  of  course ; 
but  we,  aU  of  us  loyal  to  this  Convention  as  the  supreme 
sovereign  authority  of  this  Church,  took  ground  at  once 
against  that  clause — that  it  was  the  iutroduetion  of  the 
synodical  union,  which  would  have  made  a  province,  which 
would  have  legislated  on  all  matters  not  inconsistent  with 
the  laws  of  the  Church.  The  debate  was  very  long  and 
very  able,  because  some  of  our  ablest  men  in  the  Church 
entered  most  actively  into  it.  It  was  so  able  that  the 
Bishop  in  his  address  made  special  remark  that,  it  being  the 
last  convention  of  the  diocese,  he  was  gratified  to  have 
heard  a  debate  so  able  and  instructive.  I  meant  to  say 
that  this  thing  has  been  thoroughly  studied  by  men  exces- 
sively jealous  of  the  authority  of  this  supreme  authority  of 
the  Church.  After  a  very  active  struggle,  the  obnoxious 
clause  disappeared ;  that  is  the  safest  word  to  give  to  it. 
[Dr.  Haight : — It  was  withdrawn  by  the  committee.]  Well, 
it  was  withdrawn,  and  the  legislative  power  sought  to  be 
given  to  it  was  taken  away,  and  we  rescued  the  liberties  of 
the  General  Convention  from  entanglement  with  such  a 
body.  And  now  the  canon  stands  precisely  where  we  put 
it  in  that  committee  of  the  Philadelphia  Convention.  It 
was  needed  for  the  use  of  the  Church,  allowing  permitted 
growth.  You  can  make  an  organization,  and  upon  that  or- 
ganization, if  you  can  convince  the  General  Convention 
hereafter  that  it  is  wise,  you  can  impose  a  superstructure, 
but  you  must  come  up  to  the  General  Convention ;  and  it 
becomes  the  great  issue  between  the  General  Convention 
and  the  dioceses  as  to  the  extent  of  power  to  be  delegated. 
The  canon  now  proposed  is  more  conservative  than  that 
proposed  at  Philadelphia.  This  excludes  all  determinate 
action  until  the  provinces  shall  come  to  the  General  Con- 
vention three  years  hence  '  and  state  precisely  upon  what 
subjects  they  wish  to  legislate  and  expressly  limit  and  clear- 
ly define  the  exact  extent  of  tlic  legi-slative  power  for  which 
they  mean  to  ask ;  and  then  this  Convention  will  determine 
whether  it  is  safe  to  grant  these  powers ;  and  if  so  to  what 
extent ;  and  that  brings  uji  the  question  how  far  this  per- 
mitted growth  may  extend.     As  the  canon  now  stands,  I 


120 


think  it  is  sale,  and  I  thinii  it  oiiglil  to  be  passed.  As  I 
have  exerted  myself  somewhat  actively  against  the  adoption 
of  the  Provincial  system,  which  I  tliink  will  destroy  the 
growth  of  the  Church,  I  now  say  that  I  do  not  think  this 
will  have  such  an  eft'ect ;  and  I  hope  it  will  pass. 

Mr.  Edward  McCrady,  of  South  Carolina: — I  am  sorry 
to  have  to  rise  on  this  question,  because  I  am  obliged  to 
make  a  most  determined  opposition  to  the  measure.  What 
is  to  restrain  the  dioceses  of  New  York  from  assembling 
together  ?  If  a  canon  restrains,  repeal  it.  If  no  prevent- 
ing canon  e.\ists,  and  if  the  constitution  restrains,  how  can 
a  canon  authorize  it?  I  am  opposed  to  the  adoption  of  a 
canon  like  this.  If  they  want  the  sense  of  this  body,  we 
may  declare  it  by  a  resolution,  but  not  by  a  canon.  How 
can  you  grant  organic  power,  as  this  would  be,  under  a 
canon  ?  I  must  therefore  beg  that  this  thing  be  considered 
a  little  more  fully  before  we  proceed  to  pass  this  canon. 
If  I  could  have  had  the  opportunity  at  an  earlier  day  of 
the  session,  I  would  have  proposed  a  measure  which  I  am 
satisfied  would  have  been  most  important  to  us.  We  want 
a  committee  on  the  constitution.  We  want  som«  body 
equal  in  respectability  to  the  Committee  on  Canons,  to 
which  we  shall  refer  constitutional  questions,  and  whose 
duty  shall  be  to  take  care  wlietlicr  the  constitution  is  in- 
fringed or  not.  It  is  important  that  you  should  have  such 
a  committee.  [The  President ; — The  Committee  on  Canons 
is,  fully  entitled,  the  Committee  on  the  Constitution  and 
Canons.]  Now,  I  submit  it  is  not  the  proper  committee  to 
go  to.  The  Committee  on  the  Constitution  should  be  a 
distinct  committee  and  should  have  a  watoh  over  the  Com- 
mittee on  Canons ;  then,  you  would  have  two  highly  re- 
spectable committees  in  this  body  which  would  have  their 
eyes  on  each  other.  Suppose  there  was  a  Committee  on 
the  Constitution  who  could  speak  autlioritatively  on  this 
subject,  and  could  say  that  there  is  no  occasion  for  anything 
but  a  resolution,  you  could  confide  in  it.  Now,  I  am  a 
simple  individual,  and  I  ask  upon  what  authority  can  you 
base  a  canon  ?  If  these  dioceses  have  the  right  to  assem- 
ble, you  have  no  right  to  restrain  them ;  but  if  they  come 
here  and  are  in  doubt,  arul  ask  you  to  put  them  right,  you 
say.  Look  into  the  Constitution ;  what  restrains  you  ?  If 
you  vote  to  make  a  new  organism,  a  new  constitution,  can 
you  do  it  otherwise  than  constitutionally  ?  It  seems  to  me 
that  these  observations  must  commend  themselves  to  the 
sense  of  every  gentleman,  be  he  clergyman  or  layman  ;  be 
he  what  he  may.  If  he  has  any  idea  of  a  constitution  at 
all,  any  idea  of  an  organization,  be  must  say  that  this  is 
not  the  proper  course  to  be  pursued.  I  am  perfectly  will- 
ing to  adopt  a  resolution  to  make  it  clear  that  they  nniy  do 
that.  How  can  they  act  as  an  organic  body  in  reference  to 
the  State  unless  the  State  gives  them  that  organic  capacity  ? 
I  hope  somebody  will  express  himself  upon  this  subject 
whether  I  am  entirely  wrong  by  a.sserting  that  this  author- 
ity should  be  given  by  resolution. 

Rev.  Dr.  Hare  : — If  I  correctly  understand  matters,  it  is 
not  proposed,  either  by  the  canon  wnich  comes  up  from  the 
Diocese  of  New  York,  nor  by  the  canon  proposed  by  the 
Committee  on  Canons,  to  revive  in  our  Church  any  names 
associated  with  the  ideas  of  corruption  in  the  Church ;  nor 
do  I  understand  that  either  canon  proposes  to  make  one 
diocese  in  any  way  subordinate  to  another,  or  in  any  degree 


to  lilniiuish  tlie  independence  of  om'  Bi.shops.  Nor  do  I 
understand  that  cither  proposal  would  give  any  legislative 
power  to  the  federate  council,  except  that  the  proposal 
from  the  Diocese  of  New  York  would  give  a  legislative 
power  in  matters  aifecting  the  common  interests  of  different 
dioceses  of  that  State.  The  legislative  power  which  it  pro- 
poses to  concede  to  this  federate  council  is  to  be  restricted. 
Now,  if  I  am  rightly  informed,  unless  there  is  some  hidden 
intention,  I  am  ready  to  vote  for  either  one  of  these  two 
propositions.  Other  propositions  which  have  come  before 
this  n<mse  I  am  niost  earnestly  opposed  to ;  and  in  express- 
ing opposition  to  them,  I  express  the  general  sentiment  of 
the  diocese  from  which  I  came  and  the  sentiment  of  the 
first  Bishops  of  our  diocese ;  but  I  am  perfectly  ready  to 
vote  for  the  proposal  of  the  Diocese  of  New  York,  or  the 
proposal  from  our  own  Committee  on  Canons,  unless  I  am 
mistaken  in  some  of  the  particulars  of  which  I  have 
spoken. 

Hon  S.  B.  RcGGLES — suggested  the  introduction  of  the 
word  "local"  so  as  to  read  "common  local  interests." 

Repeated  calls  for  the  question  were  here  made. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mauan  : — I  should  be  very  reluctant  indeed  to 
see  a  matter  of  this  importance  pass  without  a  more  thor- 
ough consideration  than  the  House  seems  to  be  disposed  to 
give,  judging  from  the  cries  for  the  question,  etc.  I  think 
there  is  a  great  deal  to  be  taken  into  consideration,  before 
we  determine  this  point.  As  a  member  of  the  Committee 
on  Canons  I  have  to  speak  with  a  certain  degree  of  consid- 
eration to  that  committee  and  to  all  the  members  thereof; 
but  in  the  shape  in  which  this  thing  is  brought  before  us 
just  now,  it  does  not  strike  me  as  precisely  the  thing  in- 
tended by  all  the  parties  concerned.  This  comes  before  us, 
accidentally  no  doubt,  but  at  the  same  time  in  a  way  that 
has  confused  my  mind  considerably.  It  has  come  before 
us  in  this  shape,  that,  whereas  the  matter  conmiitted  to  the 
Committee  on  Canons  was  certain  memorials  from  the  Dio- 
cese of  New  York,  the  Diocese  of  Maryland,  and  perhaps 
from  other  quarters,  it  seems  practically  to  come  before  us 
merely  as  the  measure  of  New  York,  with  the  arguments 
that  were  employed  by  New  York,  and  everything  else  seems 
to  be  omitted.  I  don't  object  to  its  appearing  precisely  in 
this  shape,  but  nevertheless  in  discussing  the  question  I 
tiiink  there  should  be  at  least  a  fair  chance  for  other  dio- 
ceses interested  in  this  matter  to  bring  out  the  views  which 
are  presented  before  their  conventions  and  which  are  more 
or  less  entertained  by  those  whom  they  represent.  And  I 
would  therefore  ask  the  attention  of  the  Convention  while  I 
read  the  resolutions  of  the  Diocese  of  Maryland  on  this  sub- 
ject :  '^Resolved,  That  it  is  the  opinion  of  this  Convention 
that  as  soon  as  may  be  after  the  organization  of  two  or 
more  dioceses  within  the  hmits  of  the  present  Diocese  of 
Maryland,  and  after  the  consecration  of  the  bishops  tor  the 
same,  tliere  should  be  a  council  of  the  said  dioceses  tlu-ough 
their  proper  representatives  to  consider  and  adopt  measures 
for  a  permanent  synodical  or  conventional  union."  I  don't 
know  whether  this  expression,  synodical  or  conventiotial 
comes  under  that  kind  of  slur  cast  upon  certain  expressions 
as  associated  with  corruptions  in  the  Church.  For  my  part, 
I  do  not  know  any  expression  that  implies  the  meeting  of 
men  together,  that  is  not  associated  with  all  kinds  of  scan- 
dals and  corruptions.     It  applies  to  all  words  we  may  use. 


121 


It  was   to  "aJo|it   Mioasures  foi'  a    puiniauent   syuoilicu!  or 
couventiou;il  miioii"  ;   "said  council  to  consist  of  tlie  liisliops 
of  tlie  several  dioceses  into  which  the  present  diocese  shall 
have  been  divided  with  teu  clerical  and  ten  lay  deputies  from 
the  several  convenlions  of  the  same,  and  to  be  held  at  such 
time  and  place  as  tlie   senior  bishop  shall  determine",    and 
then — "Jiexolvcd,   that   this  convention   petition  the   next 
General  Convention  for  such  modification  of  the  constitu- 
tion and  canons,  if  any  such  are  needed,  as  shall  enable  the 
dioceses  formed  or  to  be  formed  within  the  Umits  of  any 
present   diocese   to   form    within   themselves    a    synodical 
union."     This  was   adopted    after   gieat   consideration.     It 
was  resolved  to  petition  for  the  removal  of  anything  that 
might  stand  in   the  way,  if  necessary.     I  have   not  under- 
stood that  the  Committee  on  Canons,  in  recommending  a 
measure  of  this  kind,  have  indicated  that  there    is   really 
anything  in  the  constitution  that  stands  in  the  way  of  each 
state  or  diocese,  as  now  constituted,  acting  for  itself  in  this 
matter.     The  petition  is  that  they  should  make  "such  modi- 
fication  of  the  constitution  and  canons,    if  any  such   are 
needed,  as  shall  enable  the  dioceses  formed  or  to  be  formed 
within    the  limits   of  any  present   diocese    to  form    within 
themselves  a  synodical  union."     Then,  '^Hcsolved,  that  this 
Convention  petition  the  next  General  Convention  to  take 
the  necessary  steps  to  organize  provincial  courts  wherever 
they   may   be  desired   by  any   church   of  the  province." 
Then  a  resolution  was  ofl'ered  that  a  committee  be  appoint- 
ed to  present  these  petitions.     All  I  desire  to  say  at  present 
is,  that  there  are  several  propositions  before  the  Church 
with  regard  to  these  matters ;  and  I  would  he  sorry  to  have 
this  thing  passed   in  such  a  shape  as  may  lead  to  the  idea 
that  there  is  only  one  of  the  many  propositions  considered. 
I  think  the  discussion  should  be  conducted  in  such  a  way  as 
to  give  all  sides  a  fair  hearing  in  this  matter.     For  a  prac- 
tical measure,  merely  for  the  present  time,  I  would  be  con- 
tent with   anything — such   as  that  which  comes  from   the 
Committee   on  Canons.     I  would  be   content  with  that  as 
initiatory.     I  would  be  sorry  to  indulge  the  idea  that  there 
is  nothing  hi  this.     I  think  I  can  say  in  perfect  candor  that 
I  should  look  with  perfect  contempt  upon  the  thing  if  that 
were   the  case.     I  would  regard  it  as  the  beginning  of  a 
growth,  and  that  is  substantially  what  is  called  the  Provin. 
cial  system.     I  should  not  take  the  trouble  to  vote  upon  it 
if  it  were  not  such  a  thing  as  that.     I  desire  distinctly  to 
say  this,  that  the  Church  necessarily  from  the  beginning  to 
the  present  day,  has  been  one  great  province  of  tlie  Church 
Catholic.     It  therefore  belongs  to  the  Provincial   system. 
The  only  difficulty  connected  with  it  has  been  this,  that  the 
same   reason  which  necessitates  our  creation  of  these  im- 
mense dioceses  necessitated  also  tlie  creation  of  immense 
provinces  ;  and    therefore  as  we  have  followed  the  system, 
not   merely  of  the   early  Church,    but  the   system   of  the 
Church  in  all  ages,  and,  I  may  say,  the  common-sense  sys- 
tem  that  men  have  adopted  in  everything   that  concerns 
their  vital  interest — as  we  have  adopted  that  system  at  the 
beginning,  it  is  very   proper  that,  as  the  Church  grows, 
we  should  allow  the  system  under  which  we  live  to  grow  ; 
that  as. these  dioceses  have  become  very  large,  beyond  the 
care  of  any  one  bi.shop,  hi  each  case,  they  should  be  allow- 
ed  freely  to  divide,   under  certain  necessary  restrictions ; 
and  as  this  great  province  has  become  very  cumbersome  so 

16 


ill  like  manner  we  should  allow  it  to  divide  itself  into  a 
cluster,  or  if  you  choose  to  call  it  so,  a  federation,  council, 
or  synod,  or  anytliing  of  the  kind ;  but  then  this  principle 
ought  to  be  preserved  :  The  Church  Catholic  ought  never  to 
give  up  anything  that  it  has  found  to  be  good  ;  and  it  has 
found  this  General  Convention,  this  meeting  of  the  whole 
country  together,  to  be  a  good  and  admirable  thing  in 
every  sense  of  the  word ;  and  therefore  whatever  is  done, 
the  practical  thing  is  to  see  that  this  Convention  be  pre- 
served, this  being  looked  to  as  a  necessary  thing,  this  au- 
thority of  the  General  Convention  or  General  Council  of  the 
United  States,  as  some  desire  to  have  it  called — I  am  among 
the  number,  however,  who  do  not  care  much  about  the 
words — this  General  Convention  being  preserved  as  hereto- 
fore, it  will  become  a  matter  not  only  of  convenience,  but 
almost  of  necessity,  that  there  should  he  small  provinces, 
where  those  of  the  same  part  of  the  country  can  assemble 
together  for  certain  purposes.  And  if  we  once  come  to 
these  smaller  provinces,  Providence  has  marked  out  the  very 
system  that  has  prevailed  in  the  Church  universal,  and  that 
prevailed  in  the  time  especially  when  the  apostles  laid  the 
foundation  of  the  Church.  There  was  the  Roman  Empire 
with  its  120  provinces  corresponding  in  size  and  character 
very  much  to  the  States  of  our  American  Union,  and  what 
could  be  more  convenient,  when  we  begin  to  extend  our 
system,  when  there  is  something  like  vital  growth,  than  to 
adopt  the  lines  sanctified  by  so  many  associations  of  every 
kind,  and  that  the  dioceses  which  have  been  dioceses  hith- 
erto should  remain  dioceses  in  the  essential  sense  of  the 
word — that  they  should  be  united  in  a  common  council — 
that  they  should  work  together  in  all  essential  matters 
— and  that  they  should  be  divided  merely  for  that  which  ne- 
cessitates action  in  certain  local  matters'?  If  that  system  is 
adopted,  it  matters  not  whether  you  call  it  the  Provincial 
system,  or  federative  system,  or  the  confederate  system,  or 
anything  in  the  world.  These  are  mere  words  and  the 
words  always  derive  their  meaning  from  the  thing,  and  not 
the  thing  from  the  words.  We  read  in  the  Holy  Scriptures 
that  God  first  created  all  the  beasts  of  the  field,  and  then  He 
brought  thera  to  Adam  to  see  what  he  would  name  them. 
We  have  the  thing  first,  and  then  we  can  see  about  the 
name. 

Rev.  Dr.  Cooke  was  granted  leave  to  refer  a  memo- 
rial asking  for  some  modifications  in  the  conduct  of  pub- 
lic worship. 

On  motion  the  House  concurred  with  the  House  of 
Bishops  in  the  appointment,  as  Historiographer  of  this 
Church,  of  the  Rev.  William  Stevens  Perry. 

The  President  appointed  Rev.  Dr.  Haight,  Rev.  Dr. 
Watson,  Rev.  Dr.  Howe,  Governor  Fish,  and  Judge 
Otis,  as  the  Committee  of  Conference  on  the  amend- 
ments of  the  fifth  article  of  the  constitution. 

Rev.  Dr.  Babcock,  of  Western  New  York,  offered  a 

resolution,  which  was  adopted,  authorizing  the  Secretary 

of  the  House  to  print  and  send  to  members  of  this  House 

•  and  to  others  interested  a  statement  of  changes  made  in 

the  canons. 

On  motion  the  Secretary  was  instructed  to  return  the 
thanks  of  the  House  to  several  institutions  and  societies 
of  this  city  from  whom  invitations  have  been  received, 


122 


and  to  express  a  grateful  sense  of  their  courtesy  and 
attention. 

The  Committee  on  Adjournment  made  a  report  to  the 
effect  that  the  probable  earliest  time  of  adjournment 
consistent  with  the  transaction  of  business  before  the 
Convention  would  bo  Wednesday  next. 

On  motion  a  resolution  was  adopted  expressing  satis- 
faction at  the  prospect  of  an  early  publication  of  the 
documentary  annals  of  the  American  Colonial  Church, 
and  thanking  the  Rev.  William  Stevens  Perry  for  his 
editorial  labors  thereon. 

Rev.  Dr.  Richard  S.  Mason  : — 1  must  observe,  Mr. 
President,  I  feel  very  much  concerned  with  respect  to 
this  federative  council,  or  provincial  synod,  or  by  what- 
ever other  name  it  may  be  called.  I  observe  preliminarily 
that  I  think  too  much  stress  has  been  laid  upon  names. 
As  was  very  justly  observed  by  the  member  from  Mary- 
land [the  Rev.  Dr.  Mahan],  names  take  their  meaning 
from  the  circumstances  which  surround  the  particular 
thing  which  calls  for  the  name;  and  whether  you  call  it 
synod,  council,  or  convention,  will  make  very  little  differ- 
ence— the  meaning  of  the  name  will  be  determined  by 
the  circumstances.  I  do  not  know  that  there  is  any  great 
necessity,  any  necessity,  for  the  appointment  of  this 
council;  for  I  can  not  see  but  that  it  would  be  perfectly 
legitimate  for  a  number  of  dioceses  in  any  state  to  unite 
together  so  that  they  might  carry  on  ecclesiastical  opera- 
tions and  certain  legislative  proceedings  for  their  benefit 
without  the  action  of  this  General  Convention.  But 
there  is  a  great  benefit  and  expediency  in  the  General 
Convention  acting  upon  this  subject,  in  order  that  there 
may  be  one  uniform  system  throughout  the  Church  in 
this  country,  which  otherwise  might  not  be.  Still  I 
think  it  might  be  preferable  for  any  number  of  dioceses 
to  unite  together  for  useful  and  practical  purposes.  But 
I  look  upon  the  institution  of  a  council,  or  synod,  or  con- 
vention, whatever  you  may  call  it,  as  based  upon  more 
important  principles  than  mere  expediency.  I  think 
great  mistakes  have  been  committed  with  reference  to 
the  Catholic  Church.  We  are  in  the  habit  of  comparing 
it,  because  it  is  a  matter  immediately  before  us,  with  the 
constitution  and  government  of  the  United  States.  We 
know  very  well  how  the  states  were  first  joined  together 
by  confederation.  That  was  found  to  be  an  imperfect 
union.  They  were  afterwards  united  under  the  consti- 
tution of  the  United  States.  In  whatever  light  we  may 
view  it,  it  was  a  union.  But  there  is  no  necessity  of  en- 
tering into  these  particular,?,  because  my  object  is  to 
show  that  the  Church  is  entirely  different.  It  is  a  divid- 
ing up  of  an  original  unity.  The  Church  began  with 
the  twelve  aposties  and  those  who  were  united  with  them 
— a  great  many  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  The  apostles 
had  the  power  of  commencing  the  Church  and  of  ex- , 
tending  it.  St.  Peter  seems  to  have  had  the  authority 
to  begin  it.  He  preached  to  the  Jews  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost.  He  afterwards  opened  the  door  to  Cornelius, 
called  in  Scripture  a  devout  man,  a  term  used  to  signify 


a  Gentile  who  was  a  receiver  of  the  Scriptures.  He 
opened  the  doors  of  faith  first  to  the  Jews  and  next  to 
tlie  Gentiles.  But  the  Church,  as  I  say,  began  in  that 
manner — first  with  the  apostles  and  then  with  those 
whom  they  converted  to  the  -faith ;  and  as  the  Church 
was  extended  through  the  Roman  Empire  and  in  other 
countries,  the  division  began  by  the  appointment  of  aids 
to  the  apostles,  who  were  placed  in  certain  situations  to 
aid  them,  as  in  the  case  of  Timothy,  and  Titus,  and  per- 
ha])S  some  others  mentioned  as  apostles  in  the  New 
Testament.  And,  afterwards,  these  being  the  heads 
of  particular  departments,  there  came  in  the  dio- 
cesan episcopacy.  The  Church  did  not  begin  with  mere 
diocesan  episcopacy,  but  with  metropolitic  power.  There 
wei'e,  of  course,  bisliops  with  the  power  and  with  the  au- 
thority of  bishops ;  but  as,  when  the  Church  was  extend- 
ing, they  became  the  heads  of  other  dioceses,  so  their 
authority  as  being  in  superintendence  over  other  bishops 
was  to  a  certain  extent  recognized;  and  this  took  place 
in  the  Roman  Empire  according  to  the  divisions  of  that 
empire,  as  we  propose  it  shall  be  in  the  Church  in  this 
country  now.  In  consequence  of  our  peculiar  situation 
when  the  British  colonies  revolted  from  the  mother  coun- 
try and  the  United  States  were  established,  the  Church 
could  not  begin  in  that  particular  way.  The  Churches 
in  this  country  had  been  under  the  rule  of  the  Bishop  of 
London,  and  when  the  separation  from  England  took 
place  they  were  naturally  separated  from  his  power  and 
authority.  How  far  that  was  right  I  do  not  inquire ;  but 
it  took  place ;  and  therefore  it  was  necessai'y  that  a  com- 
bination should  be  entered  into,  such  as  we  supposed 
took  place,  and  did  take  place  in  the  union  of  states; 
and  the  Church  was  formed  originally  from  the  confed- 
eration of  the  original  states,  as  we  see  from  the  number 
of  their  representatives,  and  not  from  the  United  States. 
Then  again  it  is  proper  and  right  that  we  should  always 
hold  in  view  the  original  manner  in  which  the  Church 
was  constituted,  and  that  we  should  not  go  into  any 
measures  which  are  contrary  to  this  original  organization 
of  the  Church ;  therefore,  I  conceive  that,  on  that  ground 
if  no  other,  it  would  be  eminently  proper  that  as  the  di- 
oceses are  multiplied,  they  should  be  united  in  a  prov- 
ince, convention,  or  whatever  else  you  call  it,  that  we 
may  come  as  nearly  as  possible  to  the  original  organiza- 
tion of  the  Catholic  Church.  But  besides  we  have  been 
told,  and  have  had  it  clearly  and  distinctly  pointed  out 
to  us,  that  this  union  of  dioceses  in  a  particular  state  is 
necessary,  on  the  ground  of  the  influence  which  the  leg- 
islature of  a  state  may  otherwise  exert  unfavorably  in 
the  diffei'cnt  dioceses  in  respect  of  the  property  they 
hold,  or  in  some  other  way  to  restrain  them  of  that 
Christian  liberty  which  ought  to  belong  to  them.  Let 
us  look  at  the  Methodists,  a  very  remarkable  body  in 
their  power,  proceeding  from  their  very  wise  head,  Mr. 
Wesley.  First  of  all  they  have  their  congregations  di- 
vided up  into  small  bodies,  each  of  which  bodies  can  be 
attended  to  by  its  respective  class-leaders.     Then  they 


123 


have  their  preachers,  who  are  annually  or  biennially  ap- 
pointed for  the  particular  congregations,  and  who  have 
charge  not  only  of  the  whole  congregation,  but  of  these 
class-leaders  especially.  Then  above  those,  in  another 
circle,  they  have  their  elders,  whose  power,  so  far  as  it 
is  exercised,  is  a  good  deal  the  same  as  that  oC  our  dio- 
cesan bishops;  whether  they  have  a  rightful  power  or 
not  is  a  distinct  question.  Then  over  these  great  circles 
come  their  bishops,  who  are  in  fact  metropolitans — arch- 
bishops— except  that  in  holding  epist^opates  they  do  not 
divide,  but  the  six  bishops  take  chavj^e  of  the  whole 
Church;  and  thus  a  bishop  may  lay  bis  hand  upon  a 
member  of  any  congregation.  Then  again  in  regard  to 
the  Presbyterians;  they  have  their  congregations,  and 
then  their  elders  to  assist  the  minister  of  the  Gospel  in 
his  administration ;  and  they  have  their  presbyteries  and 
their  synods,  and  they  have,  inclutling  the  whole,  the 
general  assemblies.  I  take  it,  unless  we  make  some  such 
arrangement  as  this  for  the  purpose  of  having  unitbrmity, 
we  shall  at  last  become  a  sort  of  enlarged  Congregation- 
alism, in  which  the  bishoprics  shall  have  no  tie  one  with 
the  other  in  each  part  of  a  state,  but  be  only  separate 
and  distinct  Churches,  without  any  particular  unity  with 
the  great  body  of  the  Convention,  and,  through  its 
instrumentality,  unity  with  the  Catholic  Church.  I  have 
formerly  heard  a  good  deal  about  the  independence  of 
the  dioceses.  Now,  I  suppose,  if  what  I  say  be  correct, 
there  can  be  no  sueh  thing  as  independent  dioceses.  A 
bishop  cannot  be  consecrated  except  in  accoidance  with 
the  laws  of  the  Church ;  he  cannot  be  consecrated  by 
his  predecessors ;  and  therefore  he  must  be  consecrated 
by  some  other  bishops.  Now  if  he  is  consecrated  by 
other  bishops,  then  by  necessity,  according  to  the  laws 
of  the  Catholic  Church  brought  down  to  us  from  the 
earliest  councils,  no  diocese  can  be  entirely  independent 
of  other  dioceses,  but  must  be  governed  by  the  laws  of 
certain  dioceses  in  immediate  connection  with  it ;  it 
cannot  be  independent- and  still  be  connected  with 
the  Catholic  Church,  any  more  than  my  hand  can  be 
connected  with  my  body  without  the  connection  passing 
through  my  arm.  Therefore  I  think,  from  all  these  con- 
siderations— first  the  original  constitution  of  the  Church, 
and  tlien  next  the  necessity  which  arises  from  these  dif- 
ferent divisions,  these  circles  including  other  circles, 
from  what  we  see  around  us  so  admirably  benenting  the 
comunmiuna  in  which  these  division  take  place — I  think 
it  advisable  for  the  General  Convention  to  institute  some- 
thing like  a  provincial  synod,  or  federative  council,  or 
by  whatever  other  name  you  may  call  it.  The  woid 
synod  does  not  properly  imply  any  necessary  powers  of 
legislation  ;  the  word  convention  does  not  imply  them  ; 
nor  does  the  word  council.  The  word  council  is  only 
tlie  Latin  word  used  for  the  Greek  word  synod,  and  our 
word  "  convention  "  is  similar  to  " council "  or  "synod." 
It  does  not  make  much  ditierenee  what  name  we  call  it 
by,  so  long  as  those  provincial  councils  shall  not  absorb 


the  dioceses,  nor  interfere  with  the  authority  of  the  Gen- 
eral Convention. 

Mr.  Tazewell  Taylor  : — The  Diocese  of  New  York 
as  well  as  the  Diocese  of  Virginia,  or  any  other  diocese, 
has  a  right  to  demand  from  the  members  of  this  Conven- 
tion the  deliberate  examination  of  any  measure.  The 
distinguished  Deputy  from  South  Carolina  [Mr.  McCra- 
dy]  presented  to  this  Convention  a  question  which  no 
one  has  yet  met,  and  which,  whether  sound  or  false,  by 
its  source,  and  by  the  character  of  the  inquiries,  certain- 
ly deserves  some  answer  from  those  gentlemen  who 
have  the  matter  in  charge.  I  must  confess,  unfortunate- 
ly for  myself,  1  am  atliicted  with  the  same  Jifliculty 
which  that  deputy  presented.  The  proposition  before 
this  body  is  to  authorize  some  body  intermediate  be- 
tween the  General  Convention  and  the  Diocesan  Con- 
vention— what  is  called  a  federative  council.  It  is  then 
to  a  certain  extent  an  organism  of  this  Church.  If  it  be 
an  organism  of  this  Church,  if  it  be  necessary  that  it 
shall  be  authorized  by  a  vote  of  the  General  Convention, 
it  is  equally  necessary,  demanded  by  the  highest  con- 
siderations of  expediency  and  conformity  to  previous  leg- 
islation of  this  Convention,  that  that  organism  should  be 
in  the  constitution  and  not  in  a  canon.  If  you  look 
to  your  constitution,  you  find  that  the  General  Conven- 
tion is  organized  by  the  constitution.  It  is  provided 
in  one  article  that  the  bishops  exceeding  the  number 
three  shall  form  one  House,  and  the  House  of  Clerical 
and  Lay  Deputies  shall  form  another  House,  consisting 
of  four  clergymen  and  four  laymen,  to  be  appointed  by 
the  convention  of  each  diocese.  Shall  we,  by  canon,  un- 
dertake to  authorize  the  formation  of  a  federative  coun- 
cil— the  organization  of  four  dioceses  into  one  diocese? 
If  it  be  necessary  that  their  authority  should  Le  derived 
from  the  General  Convention,  1  submit  to  this  Conven- 
tion that  that  authority  should  be  contained  in  the  con- 
stitution. If  it  be  not  in  the  constitution,  then  there  is 
no  necessity  for  a  canon,  because  their  authority  will  be 
found  in  the  nature  of  independent  power.  When  the 
Dioceses  of  Virginia,  of  Nebraska,  or  of  Wisconsin,  as- 
semble in  convention,  their  power  is  not  derived  from 
this  General  Convention,  but  is  original  with  the  dio- 
cese. When  they  are  formed  into  a  diocese  they  have 
it.  The  canon,  I  submit,  is  not  the  mode  of  giving  this 
power.  If  it  be  necessary,  let  me  call  the  attention  of 
this  House  to  the  character  of  the  proposition  treated  as 
a  proposed  amendment  of  the  constitution.  What  does 
it  effect  V  If  efl'ects  nothing.  It  authorizes  these  sev- 
eral dioceses  in  one  State  to  form  a  federative  council 
Does  it  have  power  to  do  so  ?  No,  sir.  They  must  con- 
vene, and  they  must  submit  their  constitution  to  the 
next  General  Convention,  which  constitution  will,  of 
course,  embrace  the  powers  which  they  claim.  Is  there 
any  necessity  for  so  acting  ?  Can  not  these  several  dio- 
ceses, of  the  State  of  New  York,  without  any  authority 
granted  them,  send  through  their  conventions  and  depu- 


124 


ties, and  submit  a  plan  to  the  next  General  Convention? 
do  they  want  power  ?  and  is  it  proper  for  a  Convention 
to  pass  a  measure  so  utterly  indefinite,  and  which  does 
not  confer  any  power  at  all  ?  It  strikes  me  we  do  not 
want  any  action  at  this  time.  And  whether  I  am  right 
or  not  in  the  constitutional  view,  these  dioceses  must 
first  organize  and  determine  for  themselves  what  they 
want,  and  when  they  have  determined  for  themselves, 
then  let  them  come  and  submit  their  constitution,  and 
ask  the  next  General  Convention  to  confer  that  power  i 
and  that  Convention  will  be  prepared  to  determine  how 
'ar  it  is  expedient  to  enter  upon  this  new  system. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight  : — The  gentleman  having  asked  the 
question,  perhaps  it  is  incumbent  upon  me  to  say  a  few 
words  in  reply,  more  especially  as  the  matter  was  moved 
by  my  honorable  friend  from  South  Carolina.  The 
question  as  I  understand  it  is  this ;  What  necessity  is 
there  for  any  action  on  the  part  of  this  Convention  to 
enable  the  dioceses  in  the  State  of  New  York  to  meet 
together  and  form  a  federative  council,  at  least  to  take 
the  initiative  steps  ?  Is  there  anything  in  the  constitu- 
tion or  canons  which  forbids  it  ?  I  apprehend  there  is 
not.  What  necessity  then  is  there  for  any  action  on  the 
part  of  this  Convention  ?  I  will  answer  this  question 
with  great  frankness.  In  behalf  of  the  Diocese  of  New 
York  I  would  say  that,  although  it  is  as  clear  as  the 
noonday  sun  that  we  have  the  power  to  form  the  federa- 
tive council,  we  do  not  desire  to  do  it  without  the  consent 
of  this  Convention,  because  of  our  feelings  of  loyalty  to 
this  Church,  because  of  our  feeling  of  identification  with 
this  Church  in  all  its  parts,  because  we  are  not  willing 
to  run  the  least  chance  of  doing  the  least  thing  as  if  as- 
suming something  that  does  not  belong  to  us.  I  do  not 
speak  upon  this  subject  without  book.  I  claim  that  the 
Diocese  of  New  York  has  given  the  highest  evidence  of 
its  loyalty  to  the  Church  and  this  Convention.  It  will 
be  remembered  that  the  Diocese  of  New  York  labored 
for  six  years  under  the  heaviest  disabilities  which  any  di- 
ocese in  Christendom  was  ever  called  upon  to  labor  under. 
Our  bishop  was  stricken  down  by  a  judicial  sentence 
and  we  were  left  in  an  anomalous  position  wholly  without 
precedent.  What  did  the  Diocese  of  New  York  do  ? 
Did  she  assume  to  act  at  that  time  independently  of  the 
General  Convention.  Did  she  listen  to  counsels  given 
her  by  men  high  in  the  State  and  in  the  Church,  that 
she  should  stand  up  and  assert  her  rights  against  the  ac- 
tion of  which  she  complained  ?  No,  sir,  she  did  not. 
She  bore  the  evils  meekly.  She  came  to  the  General 
Convention  of  1847  and  portrayed  her  condition  and 
asked  for  relief;  and  the  General  Convention  refused 
to  grant  the  relief,  and  left  her  in  a  state  which  wit- 
nesses on  the  floor  of  this  House  could  testify  was  a 
state  most  deplorable  indeed.  She  submitted  to  the 
action  of  the  General  Convention,  and  she  waited  three 
years  longer,  and  then  she  asked  again  for  relief,  and 
though  not  given  in  the  way  she  desired,  she  took  it  as 
it   was   given,   and   she  went  on   her  way,  tliank   God 


rejoicing.  That  is  the  feeling  in  New  York.  We  do 
not  wish  to  do  this  without  the  sanction  of  this  Con- 
vention. We  wish  that  every  step  we  take  may 
not  only  be  open  to  the  whole  world,  but  that  it 
may  have  the  sanction  of  the  highest  legislative  author- 
ity of  this  Church.  We  do  not  wish  to  do  it,  and  we 
will  not  do  it,  except  under  the  authority  of  the  Gen- 
eral Convention. 

Rev.  Dr.  Adams  : — I  want  to  make  a  single  point.  I 
say  the  distinguished  lawyer  from  Virginia  has  brought 
forward  a  point,  which,  if  permitted  to  remain  unan- 
swered, will  be  the  most  damaging  point  to  the  New 
York  Canon  [Dr.  Haight: — not  the  New  York  canon] 
Excuse  me  !  I  didn't  think  it  was  necessary  to  be  so 
particular  when  I  was  arguing  on  the  gentleman's  own 
side  [Laughter]  and  to  waste  my  time.  I  say  the  dis- 
tinguished lawyer  from  Virginia  has  brought  forward  a 
point  which  if  passed  over  without  being  touched  upon 
is  liable  to  hinder  this  New  York  canon,  in  the  worst 
way.  I  would  say  also  that  I  think  that  point  is  brought 
forward  through  misapprehension  ;  and  that  when  he 
speaks  of  the  constitution  he  has  not  sufficiently  consid- 
ered the  provisions  of  that  constitution.  The  argument 
is,  that  this  thing  is  unconstitutional,  that  it  is  not  men- 
tioned in  the  constitution.  I  would  say  that  this  very 
provision  which  is  brought  forward  in  behalf  of  New 
York  is  distinctly  in  the  Constitution  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  from  1789  to 
1835,  that  is  to  say,  between  these  two  periods  there 
was  for  forty-six  years  constitutionally  a  provision  for  pre- 
cisely that  which  New  York  is  now  demanding  from  this 
Convention  ;  and  the  fact  is  that  it  was  only  on  account 
of  the  paucity  of  our  bishops  and  the  smallness  of  the 
Church  that  it  was  not  demanded.  There  was  a  great 
change  of  the  constitution  made  by  a  side-wind,  without 
any  evil  intention,  between  the  years  1835  and  1838. 
Antecedent  to  the  year  1838  it  was  the  rule  in  this 
Church  that  the  convention  should  not  be  a  convention 
of  single  dioceses,  but  a  convention  of  dioceses  within  the 
State.  Precisely  that  which  tlie  New  York  canon  de- 
mands, was  the  original  law  of  the  Church.  Article  4 
of  the  constitution  reads:  "the  bishop  or  bishops  in 
every  State  shall  be  chosen  agreeably  to  such  rules  as 
shall  be  fixed  by  the  constitution  of  that  State  ;  and 
every  bishop  of  this  Church  shall  confine  the  exercise  of 
his  episcopal  office  tc^is  proper  diocese  or  district  unless  re- 
quested to  ordain  or  confirm."  I  am  reading  from  the  con- 
stitution of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  antecedent  to  the  year  1838,  not  the  present  one. 
In  the  years  1 835  and  '38  there  was  an  amendment  pass- 
ed to  the  5th  article,  and  in  the  amendment  which  I  find 
printed  in  the  journal  of  183'5  there  was  this:  "Strike 
out  the  word  '  States'  in  the  1st  and  2d  articles,  except 
where  it  follows  the  word  '  United '  in  the  1st  article,  and 
insert  in  lieu  of  the  word  '  States '  the  word  '  dioceses ;' 
strike  out  the  word  '  district '  in  the  4th  article ;  strike 
out   the    word   '  State '    in    the    6tk   article  and  insert 


125 


'dionese;'  strike  out  the  word  'State'  in  the  8th 
article  and  insert  the  word  '  diocese ; '  strike  out  the 
word  'State'  in  the  9th  article  and  insert  the  word 
'diocese.'"  That  is  to  say,  that  Convention  then  and 
there  by  a  side-wind  destroyed  the  idea  which  New 
York  has  now  intended  to  place  before  this  body,  and  to 
demand  shall  be  established.  It  is  very  manifest  to  any 
one  that  will  read  the  constitution  antecedent  to  the 
year  1838,  that  the  direction  was  this;  there  might  be 
several  dioceses  in  a  State,  and  tlie  convention  of  that 
State  in  those  dioceses  was  just  precisely  as  this  New 
York  canon  requires  the  thing  to  be  now.  I  submit 
therefore  to  this  Convention,  and  also  to  the  gentleman 
who  has  made  tliis  constitutional  argument,  whether 
it  is  not  a  fact  that  by  the  Constitution  of  the  Church 
in  the  United  States  antecedent  to  the  year  1838,  the 
privilege  of  having  a  Convention  in  the  State  composed 
of  the  several  dioceses  was  not  constitutional,  a  part 
of  the  constitution?  I  suppose  therefore  that  his  argu- 
ment that  this  is  not  constitutional  would  go.  1  will  also 
say,  that  it  is  singular  to  think  what  legislatures  will  do 
without  intending  it.  There  was  a  complete  change 
wrought ;  instead  of  taking  the  Church  in  the  State  as  a 
unit,  as  it  ought  to  be,  they  set  to,  and  introduced  a  dif- 
ferent idea  that  the  diocese  was  a  unit,  and  not  the  prov- 
ince of  the  State.  [The  Pres't : — Time  is  up.]  Mr. 
Pres't,  it  is  too  bad. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead  : — From  all  1  have  heard  I  am  satis- 
fied of  one  thing,  that  gentlemen  have  not  3X't  gone  to 
the  root  of  the  whole  matter.  They  have  taken  the 
General  Convention  as  it  now  exists  as  though  it  was 
the  original  Church  in  these  United  States,  whereas  it 
is  nothing  but  the  Church  in  the  several  States  that  or- 
ganized this  house  and  constituted  the  General  Conven 
tion.  Now,  sir,  I  am  so  far  ecclesiastically  a  State- 
Rights'  man  as  to  believe  that  whatever  was  not 
conceded  in  this  constitution  is  still  reserved  to  the 
dioceses.  The  change  of  name  which  my  reverend 
brother  from  Wisconsin  has  talked  so  much  about 
amounts  to  nothing.  Dioceses  and  States  were,  when 
the  General  Convention  was  established,  synonymous. 
I  therefore  repeat  it  that  if  tlierc  be  nothing  in  the  con- 
stitution of  the  Church  as  organized  by  the  dioceses 
which  prevents  a  diocese  from  doing  such  an  act,  there 
is  no  authority  in  this  Convention  to  grant  that  power 
nor  to  question  them  in  the  exercise  of  it.  But  what 
is  the  position  in  which  we  are  placed  now  ?  Here  comes 
the  great  diocese  originally  of  the  State  of  New  York, 
and  while  that  diocese  or  State  feels  that  it  has  the  right 
to  act  without  asking  our  leave,  it  feels  also  the  great 
importance  of  the  unity  of  the  Church  in  the  United 
States,  and  in  this  age  when  every  tendency  is  to  the 
destruction  of  unity  and  the  overridmg  of  every  organic 
law,  it  wishes  even  to  stretch  a  point  to  ask  permission 
to  do  that  which  it  well  knows  it  has  authority  to  do. 
It  is  precisely  the  same  as  if  your  son  who  has  passed 
his  majority  or  your  daughter,  sliould  come  to  the  con- 


clusion   that   he   or  she  wished  to  unite  his  or  her  fate 
with  some  other  person.     That   child    if  brought   up 
properly,  I  care  not  if  50  years  of  age  [laughter]  before 
forming  the   matrimonial  relation   will  go  to  the  father 
and  mother  and  say  :  I  have  the  legal  right  I  know  to 
be  married  without  your   consent,    but  I  cannot  do  it 
according  to  my  feelings  without  your  consent.     That 
is  the  position  of  the  Diocese  of  New  York   to-day.     It 
is  not  a  question  of  rights  ;  it   is  simply  a  question  of 
proper  filial  feeling,  the  feeling  of  submission  of  a  minor 
to  a  major,  although  in  this  case  the  major  is  constituted 
of  the  minor.     Now,  the  Diocese  of  New    York  has  the 
right   to   this.     What  does  the  canon  express  ?  Simply 
the  opinion  that  that  right   does   exist:   "It  is   hereby 
declared  lawful."  The  declaration  doesn't  make  it  lawful 
necessarily  ;  but  if  any  gentleman  thinks  it  would  not 
be  lawful  without  the  declaration  of  this  Convention, 
here  is  the  declaration.     If  others  think  as  I  do,  that  it 
is  lawful,   we    can   all  unite  on   that   one  resolution  or 
canon.     It  has  been  said,  and   I  have  thought   myself, 
that  when  a  declaration  was  to  be   made,    it   might  be 
made   by   resolution  ;  but  we  have  again   and   again 
passed  declaratory  statutes  or  canons.     Why  should  we 
refu.se  to  do  it  now  ?  The   Diocese   of  New   York  lias 
asked  for  it.     Are  you  prepared  to  say  to  that  diocese : 
"That  which  is  your  right  and  which  you  respectfully 
ask  us  to  assent  to,  we  will  not  assent  to."     If  there  is 
any  danger,  if  you  fear  danger,  if  in  your  fears,  there 
be  under  the  meal  a  cat,  then  resist  it.    But  if  you  have 
no  such  apprehension,  hesitate  not  one  moment  to  con- 
cede that  to  the  Diocese  of  New  York,  in  courtesy  to  its 
filial  affection,  which  it  has  asked.     It  was  asked  of  the 
Convention  in  18fi5,   but  it  was  not   granted.     Why  ? 
Simply  because  our  Right  Reverend  Fathers  could  not 
find  time  to  attend  to  the  business  of  this  House.  Very 
well ;  let  us  try  them  again.    I  shall  not  be  surprised 
if  it  meets  the  same  fate  ;  but   let   us  not  be  a  party  to 
such  action.     Let  us  do  our  duty  affectionately   to  the 
Diocese  of  New  York  which  pays  such  respect  to  us. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mahan  : — Is  the  Diocese  of  New  York  the 
only  party  in  this  matter  ?  We  are  being  put  into  a  most 
awkward  predicament,  as  though  this  whole  business 
were  to  accommodate  the  Diocese  of  New  York. 

The  Pkesident  : — I  suppose  those  are  mere  words  of 
convenient  description ;  it  still  amounts  to  the  same 
thing,  whether  or  not  there  are  half  a  dozen  other  dio- 
ceses interested  in  the  same  thing. 

Judge  Battle  : — I  rise  with  diffidence  to  utter  a  few 
words  upon  the  question  now  before  the  Convention. 
I  do  so  because  I  find  myself  opposed  in  the  debate  by 
some  of  the  ablest  and  most  experienced  members  of 
this  House  whose  opinion  on  this  occasion  ditl'crs  from 
my  own.  All  the  arguments  which  we  liavc  heard 
hitherto  are  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  this  canon  except 
the  argumeht  advanced  by  the  gentleman  [Mr.  McCra- 
dy]  from  South  Carolina,  supported  by  tlie  gentleman 
[Mr.  Taylor].     'J'hat   argument  goes  to  the  extent  only 


iS6 


that  this  ought  not  to  be  adopted  as  a  canon  but  ought 
to  be  made  a  part  of  the  fundamental  law.  In  the  few 
remarks  I  am  about  to  ofler,  I  beg  it  to  be  understood 
that  I  wish  to  impute  no  improper  motives  to  the  Dio- 
ceses of  New  York,  Maryland,  and  Western  New  York, 
or  any  other  diocese  which  desires  the  adoption  of  this 
canon.  I  have  no  doubt  that  their  motives  are  the  very 
best ;  but,  it  seems  to  me,  we  ought  to  consider  what 
may  be  some  of  its  defects.  If  you  turn  to  the  second 
article  of  the  constitution,  you  will  see  it  provided  there 
that  every  diocese  is  to  be  represented  in  this  Conven- 
tion. Each  diocese  is  to  be  entitled  to  four  clerical 
and  four  lay  members.  While  the  diocese  extended 
throughout  the  limit  of  the  State,  and  there  was  but  one 
diocese  in  the  State,  all  stood  on  an  equality.  This  it 
seems  was  the  case  until  1838  ;  and  the  words  State 
and  diocese  were  used  synonymously.  It  was  then 
thought  proper  to  change  the  name  for  the  reason  that 
there  was  about  to  be,  or  might  soon  be  more  dioceses 
than  one  in  the  same  State.  Now,  Mr.  President,  let  us 
see  what  may  possibly  be — (I  do  not  say  it  will  be ;  I 
hope  it  never  will  be)  but  let  us  see  what  may  possibly 
be  the  effect  of  the  adoption  of  this  canon.  If  there 
were  but  one  diocese  in  a  State,  the  dioceses  would  all 
come  here  and  stand  upon  a  footing  of  equality,  no  one 
having  a  superiority  over  the  other.  Now  if  we  by  our 
own  action,  can  establish  a  council,  or  convention,  or 
whatever  you  may  choose  to  call  it,  of  the  existing  dio- 
ceses in  the  same  State,  what  may  be  the  result  ?  Why, 
sir,  when  they  come  into  this  General  Convention  the 
five  dioceses  of  New  York  will  he  entitled  to  forty  mem- 
bers on  this  floor  ;  and  if  a  vote  be  called  for  by  dioceses 
and  orders  they  will  give  five  times  the  vote  given  by 
the  Diocese  of  Texas,  South  Carolina,  or  any  other 
whose  limits  are  co-extensive  with  the  limits  of  the 
State.  That  may  be  in  the  right  direction.  But  they 
may  entertain  views  as  to  what  is  the  best  interests  of 
the  Church,  different  from  those  entertained  by  the 
dioceses  co-extensive  with  the  State.  When  we  come 
here  these  dioceses  of  New  York  having  previously  con- 
ferred with  each  other,  will  come  with  one  mind,  and 
they  will  come  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  one  pur- 
pose ;  and  that  purpose  they  will  be  able  to  accomplish. 
Two  or  three  States  will  have  enough  dioceses  in  this 
Convention  to  carry  everything  according  to  their  own 
wishes;  and  we  who  come  from  States  where  there  is 
but  one  diocese  to  a  State,  shall  be  in  a  hopeless  minori- 
ty. I  trust  if  such  be  the  case,  it  will  all  redound  to 
the  benefit  of  the  Church  and  the  glory  of  that  great 
God  whom  it  serves.  There  is  this  tendency,  and  I 
call  upon  every  diocese,  from  the  Diocese  of  Maine  to 
the  Diocese  of  Texas,  to  consider  well  the  efiect  which 
this  may  produce ;  and  let  us  not  organize  a  system 
which  may  bring  about  that  result.  [A  Deputy  :  Will 
they  not  still  have  this  large  number  of  representatives?] 
Undoubtedly  they  would  have,  but  my  argument  is 
that  they  would  come  as  a  unit.     I  am  sorr}'  I  have  not 


been  able  to  bring  that  out  before,  because  that  is  the 
whole  scope  of  the  few  remarks  I  have  to  ofler.  But 
there  was  one  consideration  pressed  upon  the  Conven- 
tion in  1865,  which  caused  the  measure  to  be  adopted 
on  that  occasion,  namely,  that  it  was  necessary  for  them 
to  be  united  for  tlie  purpose  of  applying  to  the  legisla- 
ture of  the  State.  Now  if  that  cannot  be  accomplished 
in  any  other  way  than  by  the  establishment  of  this  sys- 
tem, then  I  am  willing  that  the  difficulty  should  be 
thrust  upon  me.  It  seems  to  me  that  there  is  no  neces- 
sity for  adopting  this  course  for  the  purpose  of  carrying 
that  out ;  for  it  is  very  easy  in  these  days  for  these 
dioceses  to  confer  together,  and  each  appoint  agents, 
and  apply  to  the  legislature  to  grant  any  act  necessary 
for  the  one  or  the  whole.  I  offer  these  remarks  with 
much  diffidence,  because  I  find  mj'self  opposed  by  what 
seems  to  be  the  current  opinion  in  this  House.  If  the 
members  of  this  House  think  that  this  result  may  be  pro- 
duced, I  hope  they  will  hesitate,  as  I  am  compelled  to 
do  before  I  can  vote  for  this  canon.  I  did  not  have  the 
honor  of  being  on  the  Committee  on  Canons  when  this 
measure  was  proposed,  and  do  not  feel  bound  by  any 
action  of  theirs. 

Rev.  Dr.  Howe  :— I  was  intending  to  say  only  that 
there  can  be  no  denial  of  the  fact  that  it  will  be  entirely 
practicable  for  these  several  dioceses  which  shall  be 
thus  associated,  if  they  shall  please  when  met  in  con- 
vention, to  confer  as  to  measures  which  they  will  prose- 
cute in  the  General  Convention.  I  do  not  see  how  we 
are  going  to  prevent  that.  I  suppose  it  will  be  practi- 
cable to  do  so,  even  if  they  do  not  have  any  federate 
councils.  I  suppose  there  are  combinations  of  dioceses 
that  are  accordant  in  sentiment  veiy  frequently,  for  the 
purposes  of  carrying  measures  agreeable  to  their  own 
ideas  of  prosperity.  But  I  agree  with  my  reverend 
friend  and  colleague  who  said  that  they  have  this  pow- 
er without  granting  it,  that  they  could  have  associated 
themselves  in  this  way  without  approaching  this  Con- 
vention. I  rejoice  however  that  these  dioceses  have 
preferred  to  come  and  subordinate  themselves  in  regard 
to  this  to  the  General  Convention  of  the  Church,  and 
that  they  are  willing  to  accept  the  passage  of  a  canon 
or  resolution,  or  order  here  that  nothing  shall  be  done 
by  them,  no  constitutional  power  shall  be  conferied 
upon  them  by  this  House  until  such  power  has  been 
submitted  to  the  General  Convention  for  its  approval. 
There,  sir,  is  the  question — Whether  we  shall  leave  them 
to  make  such  organizations  without  the  sanction  of  the 
General  Convention  and  without  stay  on  th&>partof  the 
General  Convention  in  regard  to  the  powers  they  will 
exercise  other  than  those  provided  in  the  constitution 
and  canons — whether  we  shall  leave  them  to  do  this 
themselves  or  whether  we  shall  give  them  the  power 
when  they  have  decided  what  powers  they  want  in  re- 
gard to  these  organizations.  If  we  prefer  that  they 
should  do  it  alone  and  without  our  concurrence,  we  can 
reject  tlie  canon,  and  then  they   can  confer  and  deter- 


127 


mine  upon  what  measures  they  will  pursue  when  they 
come  together  into  the  General  Convention.  If  we 
prefer  to  have  our  hand  in  the  thing,  and  have  some 
voice  in  the  assignation  of  power  to  these  conventions, 
then  it  seems  to  mo  it  will  be  wise  to  pass  this  canon 
which  we  have  been  asked  to  pass. 

Gov.  Stevenson,  of  Kentucky: — I  am  sure,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, that  there  is  no  diocese  represented  in  this  Con- 
vention which  would  be  more  willing  to  yield  every 
courtesy  to  the  State  of  New  York  than  the  Diocese  of 
Kentucky ;  and  if  in  obedience  to  what  is  termed  loyal- 
ty to  the  Church,  the  Diocese  of  New  York  comes  to 
this  Convention  for  the  privilege  of  exercising  an 
acknowledged  right,  it  is  still  more  incumbent,  in  ac- 
cordance with  that  courtesy  which  Kentucky  feels  to 
every  diocese,  that  the  assent  should  be  conceded  ;  and 
if  it  were  a  mere  question  of  assent,  I  should  have  no 
difficulty  as  to  making  that.  If  it  is  a  mere  question 
of  assent  to  the  exercise  by  a  diocese  of  an  acknowledged 
existing  right,  why  not  let  us  give  that  assent  by  a 
resolution  instead  of  by  a  canon? 

Rev.  Dr.  Howe  : — Because,  sir,  bj'  its  being  thrown 
into  the  form  of  a  citoon  it  comes  into  a  conspicuous 
place  ;  it  is  handed  down  from  Convention  to  Conven- 
tion, and  it  becomes  operative  in  the  case  of  other  dio- 
ceses doing  the  same  thing.  If  we  put  it  in  the  form  of 
a  resolution  it  will  be  regarded  as  pertaining  to  a  par- 
ticular request,  and  pass  out  of  sight  and  mind.  But 
make  it  a  declaratory  canon  and  then  it  rules  all  future 
cases  of  a  like  sort. 

Gov.  Stevenson  (continuing)  : — I  cannot  base  [my 
action,  as  a  deputy  of  this  Convention,  upon  the  mere 
place  in  the  legislation  of  the  Church  in  which  this 
•1.  canon  is  to  stand.  It  is  unworthy  of  the  Convention 
that  any  such  reason  as  that  should  characterize  its  ac- 
tion. If  the  learned  and  distinguished  deputy  who  al- 
ways speaks  clearly  and  to  the  point  says  they  have  this 
right  and  only  want  assent,  then  usage  is  on  my  side, 
that  it  should  be  given  by  resolution  rather  than  by 
canon.  I  am  not  fastidious  on  this  matter;  I  am  really 
advocating  the  exercise  of  this  right.  I  think  that  if 
given  by  resolution  there  would  scarcely  be  a  dissent; 
it  would  not  involve  any  constitutional  question,  and 
every  man  would  vote  for  it  knowingly,  without  com- 
mitting himself  to  a  change  of  the  constitution.  I  ad- 
mit that  nothing  that  this  proposed  federative  council 
shall  do  is  binding  until  it  shall  have  received  the  assent 
of  this  Convention ;  but  when  they  have  acted  they 
will  have  the  canon  law  of  this  Convention  to  stand  by 
and  we  may  be  called  upon  to  change  the  law.  That 
is  necessarily  the  effect  of  what  these  gentlemen  ask. 
I  agree  with  the  learned  deputy  who  said  he  was  in 
favor  of  this  thing,  doing  it  by  the  way  of  resolution. 
I  cannot  vote  for  this  canon  for  the  reason  that  I  am  not 
willing  to  commit  myself  to  enacting  a  law  as  a  canon 
law  when  the  canon  law  hereafter  may  be  used  against 
our  successors  three  years  hencp  j  for  such  things  have 


been  before.  I  suppose  I  am  bound  to  presume  that  it 
will  be  just  what  my  learned  friends  have  said — for  the 
benefit  of  the  Church  at  home  and  at  large.  I  will  not 
sanction  a  change  in  the  constitution  by  undertaking 
without  further  discussion  to  institute,  even  by  intend- 
ment, by  the  passage  of  a  canon,  an  intermediate  body 
between  the  Diocesan  Convention  and  the  General  Con- 
vention. While,  therefore,  I  am  in  favor  of  giving  this 
leave,  I  prefer  it  should  be  by  resolution  rather  than  by 
a  canon,  which  will  get  us  into  difficulty  immediately ; 
and  this  presumed  acquiescence  and  consent  given  by 
this  general  assembly  to  do  such  and  such  things,  will 
be  urged  upon  the  Convention  for  adopting  these  meas- 
ures, which  it  seems  to  me  will  lead  us  into  diiBcuIty. 
I  may  be  too  fastidious,  too  conservative.  I  love  this 
Church  and  its  constitution,  never  having  known  any 
other.  I  am  carrying  with  me  the  convictions  of  my  in- 
tellect and  the  afTections  of  my  earlier  and  later  days  in 
the  Church  in  which  I  was  born  and  trust  to  die.  It  is 
for  its  unity,  its  conservatism,  its  perpetuity,  that  I  hes- 
itate to  fake  action  which  hereafter  may  create  powers 
whose  results  no  man  can  foresee. 

Rev.  Mr.  Rogeks  :— I  beg  leave  to  occupy  the  atten- 
tion of  the  House  for  a  few  moments.  The  gentleman 
[Judge  Battle]  has  called  upon  all  weak  dioceses  to 
speak  in  this  matter.  I  desire  in  the  name  of  my  dio- 
cese to  speak,  because  she  has  instructed  me  to  urge — 
you  have  heard  the  memorial — that  there  should  be 
such  legislation  on  the  part  of  the  Convention  as  would 
enable  her  to  institute  some  associative  action,  that  she 
may  act  for  herself.  I  have  told  you  of  her  weakness 
and  at  the  same  time  of  her  magnitude.  We  saw  that 
we  should  sooner  or  later  have  several  dioceses,  of  which 
one  would  be  strong  and  all  the  others  weak ;  and  that 
the  missionary  efforts  must  all  lie  on  the  outside.  We 
saw  that  it  was  utterly  impossible  that  these  new  dio- 
ceses to  be  formed  by-and-by,  would  be  able  to  support 
their  own  missionaries ;  and  we  are  anxious  that  that 
which  now  forms  the  one  diocese  should  be  able  so  to 
act  as  to  spread  her  missionaries  over  the  borders,  by 
united  action.  It  is  exactly  what  New  York  is  asking 
to  do.  She  wants  this  combined  action  that  from  this 
strong  centre  she  may  be  able  to  send  the  Gospel  out 
more  efficiently  than  by  separate  effort.  What  danger 
to  the  General  Convention  V  What  danger  to  other 
dioceses  ?  It  is  only  for  internal  central  government 
within  ourselves.  Texas  askes  this  action  that  she  may 
be  able  by-and-by  to  institute  such  action  as  that  we 
may  be  able  to  work  in  our  own  matters  as  we  would 
work  to-day  if  we  were  strong.  The  last  gentleman 
who  spoke  on  the  subject,  said  he  was  willing  to  do  this 
by  resolution  but  not  by  canon  ;  and  then  he  goes  on 
to  give  the  reason  why  it  should  not  be  done  at  all.  I 
can  not  see  why,  if  we  can  give  the  power  by  resolu- 
tion, we  can  not  give  it  by  canon.  1  ask  on  the  part  of 
Texas  that  you  give  this  authority  to  the  Church — that 
dioceses  may  associate,  that  they  may  have  some  central 


128 


at'tion  by  which  they  may  reach  out  then-  influence. 
It  is  for  tliat  and  that  alone  that  Texas  asks  and  expects 
it.  With  regard  to  the  constitutional  oljjection,  I  be- 
lieve the  gentleman  is  under  a  misapprehension.  He 
argues  as  though  we  could  not  give  by  canon  that  for 
which  there  is  no  authority  in  the  constitution.  We 
can  do  anything  that  that  constitution  docs  not  prohibit. 
We  made  the  constitution  to  limit  ourselves.  Where  it 
has  limited  us  we  are  bound  by  the  limitation.  Where 
it  has  not  limited  us,  we  are  free  as  the  wind.  I  believe 
with  all  my  heart  the  Church  is  bound  to  grow  and  de- 
velope  a  provincial  system.  1  am  satisfied  with  that  sys- 
tem which  embraces  simply  the  dioceses  within  a  State 
for  the  present ;  but  I  am  extremely  anxious  that  the 
prayer  of  my  diocese  may  be  answered.  This  is  my 
answer  to  North  Carolina. 

Rev.  Dr.  Pierce,  of  Alabama: — It  appears  to  be 
conceded  on  all  hands  that  the  dillerent  dioceses  in  a 
State  have  the  power  of  associating  themselves  without 
any  such  permission  given  by  this  body.  I  think  it  will 
be  very  difficult  to  show  that  they  have  not  the  power 
of  conmiitting  to  that  central  body  in  their  State  such 
legislative  powers  as  they  choose.  There  is  a  power 
then,  and  the  simple  question  for  this  Convention  to  de- 
cide is,  will  they  allow  that  power  to  act  without  re- 
straint, or  will  they  take  it  under  their  own  control,  and 
put  it  in  harness.  If  the  dioceses  have  the  power  of 
combining,  they  have  the  power  of  committing  such 
powers  to  the  central  body  as  they  choose  ;  and  we  have 
no  control  over  the  power  that  shall  be  committed  to 
them,  unless  we  a;;t  upon  it  here,  and  put  this  power  in 
harness. 

Mr.  Fkancis  B.  FoGii,  of  Tennessee: — It  appears 
to  me  that  there  is  great  difference  of  opinion  among 
the  members  of  this  House  as  to  the  powers  of  the 
General  Convention  and  of  the  diocesan  convention. 
Some  are  of  opinion  that  the  General  Convention  has 
much  more  extensive  power  than  others  are  willing  to 
concede;  and  then  there  are  many  members  from  New 
York  and  Maryland  whose  opinion  is  that  it  requires 
the  assent  of  the  General  Convention  for  them  to  in- 
troduce any  new  form  of  government  within  their  own 
dioceses.  One  great  reason  for  this  application  is  that 
there  may  be  differences  of  opinion  as  to  the  powers  of 
the  Convention  and  the  diocesan  convention.  And 
the  reason  of  having  a  canon  instead  of  a  resolution  is, 
we  want  a  uniform  rule  that  shall  apply  to  all  the  dio 
ceses.  It  does  not  attempt  to  define  any  powers.  It 
says  whatever  is  done  by  these  diocesan  conventions  of 
a  general  nature  shall  be  brought  forward  before  this 
Convention  at  the  next  session,  and  the  only  reservation 
is  that  they  may  in  the  mean  time  make  their  applica- 
tion to  the  legislature  of  the  State  for  the  purpose  of 
having  legislation  in  regard  to  their  common  property. 
The  constitution  of  the  State  of  New  York,  I  believe, 
provides  that  no  corporation  shall  be  granted  without  a 
reservation  that  its  corporate  powers   may  be   repealed. 


But  there  are  many  vested  rights  of  the  Church  all  de- 
pendent upon  the  general  regulation  of  the  Church, 
and  the  object  is  that  they  may  make  joint  application 
that  where  the  property  has  been  in  common  it  may  be 
separated,  and  that  trusts  may  be  perfected.  The  legis- 
lature might  act  upon  these  requests  if  they  were  au- 
thorized by  canon  to  make  them,  while  some  might  not 
regard  a  resolution  as  sufficient  authority.  Under  these 
circumstances  it  does  not  ajipear  improper  to  proceed 
by  canon. 

Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin  : — There  are  two  points  to  which 
I  wish  to  call  attention.  One  was  mentioned  some  time 
ago,  that  this  business  of  a  federative  council  had  been 
tried  in  the  eastern  dioceses.  I  have  to  say  that  in  the 
eastern  dioceses  there  never  was  such  a  thing  as  a  fed- 
eration of  the  dioceses.  The  case  referred  to,  of  the 
eastern  dioceses,  is  entirely  out  of  relation  to  this  case, 
as  in  the  eastern  dioceses  just  as  fast  as  the  different 
States  were  organized  into  dioceses  they  ceased  to  have 
any  representation  in  the  common  Council  of  the  east- 
ern dioceses.  The  eastern  dioceses  were  one  diocese. 
When  Vermont  was  constituted  a  separate  diocese,  it 
had  its  separate  convention,  and  had  nothing  to  do  with 
the  eastern  dioceses. 

Rev.  Dr.  JIulchahet  : — I  think  I  am  right  in  stating 
as  a  fact  that  these  several  States  did  retain  diocesan 
conventions  until  they  elected  Bishops.  There  were 
diocesan  conventions  in  connection  with  the  general 
diocese. 

Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin  : — They  were  not  organized  as 
dioceses;  they  were  under  one  Bishop;  at  all  events 
they  have  no  analogy  to  this  case.  In  regard  to  an- 
other point,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  question  is  not 
whether,  according  to  some,  our  action  should  be  by  * 
canon  or  resolution,  but  whether  we  may,  as  to  this  Con- 
vention, under  the  constitution  pass  this  canon  ;  not, 
must  we  pass  this  canon  in  order  that  New  York  or  any 
other  part  of  the  country  may  unite  ;  but,  have  we  a 
right  to  pass  this  canon  1  It  is  said  by  some  to  be  a  con- 
stitutional thing  instead  of  a  matter  of  canon,  because 
they  do  not  find  in  the  constitution  any  authority  to  pass 
such  a  canon.  I  will  refer  to  a  canon  of  the  same  sort 
— canon  13.  If  the  dioceses  of  New  York  should  pro- 
ceed to  take  this  action,  this  General  Convention  could 
pass  a  canon  which  would  put  an  end  to  it.  Let  us  not 
have  dioceses  going  forward  to  do  what  they  can  do,  and 
yet  that  which  the  Convention  can  have  the  power  to 
annul.  The  dioceses  have  properly  asked  that  the  fed- 
erative council  should  be  organized  with  the  consent  of 
the  whole  Church ;  and  if  they  take  the  action,  it  is 
safe  and  can  not  be  abrogated.  The  question  is  not 
whether  it  is  necessary  to  do  this,  but  whether  we  have 
the  power  to  do  it. 

Mr. : — My    mind    has     been   partially 

made  up  against  this  canon,  but  upon  looking  at  the  can- 
on as  introduced  and  reported,  I  find  the  sting  has  been 
taken  out.  1  think  the  grand  difficulty  will  be  in  obtain- 


129 


in^  the  consent  ofanotlicr  Convention  to  this  conventional 
synod.  I  think  it  is  better  to  postpone  the  serious  con- 
sideration of  this  subject  until  that  time  comes.  Upon 
looking  over  the  canons  of  the  convention  of  my  diocese, 
I  find  a  resolution  was  passed  instructing  the  delegates 
to  this  Convention  to  vote  in  favor  of  the  proposition. 
1  therefore  considered  my.self  bound  by  il,  though  against 
my  views,  because  I  did  not  believe  in  making  an  organic 
change  until  the  nearly  unanimous  voice  of  the  Church 
concurs  in  it.  But  as  all  possible  objections  are  taken 
away  by  the  report  of  the  committee,  I  am  bound  to 
vote  for  it.  There  is  nothing  of  a  constitutional  ques- 
tion involved  in  this  canon.  It  does  not  change  the 
constitution  ;  it  does  not  change  the  laws  of  the  Church  ; 
it  is  an  ennhliiiy  act,  if  you  please.  It  permits  any  given 
number  of  dioceses  to  act  together  and  make  a  prop- 
osition to  tliis  Cbnvention  ;  it  simply  gives  them  unlimit- 
ed power  of  proposition  to  this  Convention  ;  and  if  their 
constitution  be  in  subordination  to  the  constitution  of 
this  Church,  I  can  see  nothing  illegal  or  unconstitutional 
about  it.  I  make  a  suggestion  to  the  friends  of  the  prop- 
osition and  the  committee  reporting  the  canon,  of  a  ver- 
bal alteration,  which,  I  think,  it  would  be  desirable  to 
make.  Strike  out  the  word  "  State,"  it  being  the  last 
word  but  two  in  the  resolution,  and  insert,  "  States  in- 
cluded within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  federative  council." 
As  it  reads  now  it  says  "  Church  in  the  State."  What 
State  ?     It  is  ambiguous. 

Rev.  Mr.  Martin  moved  the  substitution  of  the  can- 
on as  proposed  by  the  special  committee  on  the  Provin- 
cial System  for  the  canon  as  proposed  by  the  commit- 
tee on  Canons  except  the  words  "  and  he  shall  be  pre- 
siding Bishop  thereof" 
^  At  the  solicitation  of  several  persons,  the  substitute 
was  withdrawn. 

Mr. : — When  this  question  was  brought  up 

in  1805,  the  project  of  New  York  was  designated  a 
provincial  system,  and  under  that  name  it  is  brought  be- 
fore this  Convention  as  a  provincial  system.  In  the 
first  place,  it  is  a  mere  voluntary  s3-stem,  and  is  an  organ- 
ism in  the  Church  which  is  against  its  constitution. 
Tliis  canon  proposed  by  the  Diocese  of  New  York,  allows 
a  voluntary  system  which  comes  in  direct  conflict  with 
the  constitution  of  the  Church,  not  only  with  the  consti- 
tution of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  but  with  the 
constitution  of  the  Catholic  Church.  The  constitution 
of  the  Church  can  not  be  made  by  man.  There  is  no 
organism  in  the  Catholic  Church  of  Christ  except  the 
diocesan  Church  and  the  provincial  Church.  This  in- 
troduces an  organization  which  is  heterodox,  which  is 
contrary  to  its  constitution,  because  without  precedent 
in  the  whole  history  of  the  Church.  In  the  next  place, 
the  powers  of  this  federative  system  are  not  well  defin- 
ed. It  has  no  primacy  ;  it  is  a  mere  mongrel  system, 
a  mere  excrescence,  and  I  think  further  than  that, 
that  it  is  encumbered  with  the  very  germs  of  disor- 
der, disunion,  and  schism. 

17 


Governor  Fish  : — The  gentleman  has  stated  that  it 
was  first  a  mere  project  of  the  Diocese  of  New  York.  I 
deny  it.  I  disclaim  it.  The  project  comes  from  a  committee 
of  this  body  on  the  memorials  of  three,  four,  or  five  dio- 
ceses. The  canon  before  you  is  not  the  canon  which 
New  York  asked  for.  Maryland  has  asked  for  it  as 
much  as  New  York.  Western  New  York  has  asked 
for  it.  Texas  has  asked  for  it ;  and  yet  the  Rev.  gentle- 
man has  heaped  epithets  upon  epithets,  and  has  endeav- 
ored to  put  them  all  upon  the  Diocese  of  New  York. 

Mr. :  The  memorial  from   the  Diocese  of 

Maryland  is  a  difierenl  thing.  I  am  willing  to  consent 
to  a  canon  framed  on  the  memorial  of  the  Diocese  of 
Maryland. 

A  deputy  renewed  the  substitute. 

Dr.  Mead^ — moved  the  indefinite  postponement  of 
the  substitute  if  it  did  not  carry  the  whole  subject. 

The  substitute  was  withdrawn  and  the  vote  taken 
upon  the  canon,  which  was  adopted. 

Rev.  Dr.  Richard  S.  Mason — made  a  report  from 
the  Committee  on  the  Prayer  Book  with  reference  to 
the  Nicene  Creed,  concluding  with  the  following  reso- 
lution : 

Resolved,  That,  the  House  of  Bishops  concurring,  a  joint 
Committee  be  appointed  to  consist,  on  the  part  of  this 
House,  of  three  clergymen  and  three  laymen,  to  prepare  and 
report  for  the  information  of  this  Convention,  an  accurate 
copy  of  the  Nieene  Creed,  translated  from  the  original 
Greek ;  and  that  the  committee  have  leave  to  print  their 
translation  and  report  it  for   the  use  of  tins  Convention. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead  : — That  appears   to  me  to  give  the 
'committee  full  control  of  the  question.     If  we  act  upon 
this,  we  authorize  the  committee  to  make  the  translar 
tion,  and  authorize  the  whole  affair. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight  : — What  is  the  use  of  appointing  a 
joint  committee  by  this  House  to  do  what  twenty  men 
on  this  floor  are  able  to  do  V 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead  : — If  that  report  is  now  submitted,  I 
move  that  it  be  laid  upon  the  table. 

Rev.  Dr.  Piekce  : — I  call  for  a  vote  by  Dioceses  and 
Orders. 

A  member  of  the  committee  stated  that  the  resolution 
submitted  by  the  chairman  of  the  committee  was  not 
the  one  that  he  had  voted  foi.  This  statement  subse- 
quently appeared  to  have  been  maiie  from  a  misappre- 
hension ;  but  on  account  of  it  the  chairman  withdrew 
the  report. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mdi.chahey  : — I  move  that  the  second 
canon  proposed  by  the  Special  Committee  be  taken  up 
in  order,  the  several  sections  in  order. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead  : — As  we  have  debated  the  question  • 
some  time  in  connection   with    what  we  have  just  vo- 
ted  upon,   with  the    view     to    test    the  sense  of  the 
House,  I   move  to  lay  the  subject  on  the  table ;  which 
motion  was  agreed  to. 

Judge  Battle,  from  the  Committee  on  Canons, 
to  whom  was  referred  a  proposed  amendment,  with  an 


130 


amendment  concerning  the  consecration  of  churclies, 
reported   again  resolutions  for  adoption  by  the  House. 

JunGE  Battle  : — I  would  merely  state  to  the  Con- 
vention that  I  have  not  heard  any  objection  to  the  first 
section  of  the  canon,  and  I  move  its  adoption. 

Rev.  Dr.  Beardsley — of  Connecticut.  I  wish  to 
ask  a  question,  the  answer  to  which  may  affect  my  vote. 
There  may  not  be  many  cases  of  the  kind  in  the  coun- 
try, but  I  know  one  venerable  parish  which  does  not 
now,  nor  can  ever,  have  a  title  to  the  land  upon  which  its 
edifice  is  erected.  If  Trinity  Church,  New  Haven, 
which  stands  by  the  courtesy  of  the  city  authorities  on 
public  ground,  should  be  burned  down,  I  do  not  see  how 
the  new  one  could  have  the  form  of  consecration  of 
church  or  chapel  used.  Many  of  the  earliest  churches 
in  Connecticut  were  built  on  what  was  called  a  pjlilic 
common,  and  here  and  there  a  church,  we  suppose  i  he 
original  one,  occupies  the  ancient  site.  Rome,  I  believe, 
does  not  build  her  churches  and  cathedrals  or  houses 
upon  lands  to  which  she  has  not  the/uU  title  or  the  own- 
ership, and  the  wisdom  of  her  policy  in  this  respect  is 
great.  1  think  the  canon  is  a  wise  one,  but  I  should  like 
to  know  if  it  is  intended  to  apply  to  the  case  of  a  church 
erected  upon  a  public  park  or  common. 

Judge  Battle — said  that  unless  the  title  was  se- 
cured the  church  could  not  be  consecrated,  but  he 
thought  that  the  Convention  should  not  refuse  to  adopt 
this  principle  because  of  a  few   exceptions  of  that  sort. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead  : — By  the  law  of  Connecticut  posses- 
sion for  a  certain  length  of  time  gives  fee  simple. 

Judge  Battle— said  that  that  was  good  law  in  his 
State. 

Mr-  Wm.  Samuel  Johnson — the  title  is  in  the  city  of 
New  Haven.  As  to  my  own  parish,  the  title  is  in  the 
town.  The  license  was  granted  to  the  Congregational- 
ists  to  place  their  church  on  that  land.  So  it  was  long  a 
question  much  debated,  and  of  a  good  deal  of  historical 
interest.  In  the  first  instance  we  were  permitted  to 
build  our  house  upon  a  hill ;  but  the  timber  being  col- 
lected was  burned  up  by  our  opponents  for  the  reason 
that  the  Episcopal  Church  was  not  to  be  placed  upon 
laud  higher  than  the  Congregational  Church.  The  town 
granted  us  power  to  set  our  church  upon  land  on  which 
it  was  built  in  1744,  and  which  is  on  a  lower  level  than 
the  site  of  the  Congregational  Church  ;  but  we  have  no 
title  not  even  by  possession ;  for,  to  the  learned  Deputy, 
I  will  say  that  the  Statute  of  Limitations  does  not  run 
against  the  State  bodies. 

Mr. : — I  have  passed  my   life  in  the  West. 

Very  frequently  there  it  is  the  case  tliat  we  have  the 
land  upon  which  to  build  churches,  and  have  given 
notes  to  run  for  many  years.  Take  a  State  like  Oregon, 
or  a  new  State  like  Nebraskj^,  a  few  men  buy  the  prop- 
erty and  give  their  notes  ;  as  they  become  due  the  notes 
are  paid ;  but  their  notes  would  be  a  lien  upon  the 
property;  there  would  not  be  a  title.  I  want  to  ask 
in  that  case  if  the  church  could  be  consecrated? 


Judge  Battle  : — No,  sir.  The  very  object  of  the  law 
is  to  prevent  it. 

The  Deputy  : — The  church  in  which  I  worship  is  to 
be  consecrated  yet ;  we  have  not  paid  every  dollar  upon 
it.  With  this  understanding  of  the  report,  I  shall  vote 
against  it. 

Mr. : — I  wish  to  throw  out  one  single  con- 
sideration. I  ask  the  members  of  this  Convention 
whether  the  very  specifications  first  from  one  and  then 
from  another  diocese  do  not  show  that  it  is  wiser  to 
leave  this  question  where  it  has  always  been  left,  namely 
with  the  Diocesan  Conventions  ?  We  have  no  objection, 
in  our  diocese,  but  the  succeeding  two  clauses  are  in 
direct  conflict  with  the  law  of  the  State.  Does  not  the 
fact  that  one  of  the  clauses  is  already  in  harmony  with 
the  diocesan  legislation  of  one  or  more  of  the  dioceses 
where  the  state  of  the  public  law  admits  it,  and  that  it 
is  in  conflict  with  the  legislation  of  the  other  dioceses, 
show  that  it  is  a  question  which  had  better  be  left  to 
the  Diocesan  Conventions  ?  I  ask  whether  these  facts  do 
not  furnish  a  satisfactory  ground  of  belief  that  it  is  bet- 
ter and  more  expedient  to  leave  this  class  of  questions 
to  diocesan  legislation  ? 

Mr. : — I  know  of  a  church  now  in  the  course 

of  erection  ;  it  is  necessary  to  purchase  four  lots  from 
four  different  owners  ;  one  refuses  to  sell  except  on  con- 
dition that  he  have  a  mortgage  upon  that  property  and 
no  other. 

On  motion  the  canon  was  laid  on  the  table. 

On  motion  the  House  proceeded  to  the  consideration 
of  the  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Canons,  amending 
canon  eleven,  "of  persons  not  ministers  of  this  Church 
officiating  in  any  congregation  thereof."  The  proposed 
amendment  was  as  follows  :  ^ 

No  minister  in  charge  of  any  congregation  of  this 
Church  or,  in  case  of  vacancy  or  absence,  no  church- 
warden, vestryman  or  trustees  of  the  congregation  shall 
permit  any  person  to  officiate  therein  without  sufficient 
evidence  of  his  being  duly  licensed  or  ordained  to  min- 
ister in  this  Church. 

Rev.  Dr.  Crane  : — I  would  much  prefer  that  that 
amendment  which  I  proposed  should  be  carried  through; 
but  wo  are  arriving  at  a  late  period  of  the  session ;  and 
there  is  hardly  time  for  this  to  go  to  the  House  of 
Bishops  and  receive  their  sanction,  if  they  should  see  fit 
to  give  it.  It  is  absolutely  essential  that  this  should 
be  acted  upon,  and  in  order  to  save  time,  I  am  willing 
to  withdraw  that  amendment,  and  take  the  canon  as  it 
is  proposed  by  the  Committee  on  Canons,  withdrawing 
my  amendment  and  proviso,  and  adding  this  proviso  : 
"Provided  that  nothing  herein  shall  be  construed  as 
forbidding  communicants  of  this  Church  to  act  as 
lay-readers." 

Rev.  Dr.  Mahan  : — So  far  as  I  am  concerned  person- 
ally, I  am  perfectly  willing  to  adopt  that  amendment, 
though  at  the  same  time  I  would  say  that  that  point 
was  duly  considered  by  the  committee,  and  we  all  con- 
sider it  as  included  in  the   canon   anyhow ;  but  still  to 


131 


make  assurance  doubly  sure  I  am  confident  the  commit- 
tee would  adopt  it. 

Rev.  Dr.  Howe  : — It  seems  to  me'that  tlic  wliole  thing 
is  in  the  canon  as  it  is.  It  is  a  sort  of  canon  of  common 
sense  that  comes  in,  in  the  case  of  an  emergency. 

Rev.  Dr.  Crane  : — There  is  a  reason  for  tha  proviso 
which  I  have  here  presented.  It  is  very  important  that 
we  get  this  canon  as  it  has  come  from  the  committee. 
I  am  willing  to  accept  it  in  that  form.  I  may  state  also 
that  there  is  a  large  portion  of  this  Convention,  or  the 
delegates  from  a  large  section  of  our  Church,  who  make 
a  representation  of  this  kind  :  they  say  that  not  a  few 
of  their  cliurches  are  now  destitute,  unless  they  can  ob- 
tain lay-readers  ;  but  that  they  cannot  get  those  lay- 
readers  to  take  a  license,  and  that  their  churches  would 
be  left  without  service  simply  on  the  ground  that  if  you 
say  lay-readers  must  be  licensed,  they  will  not  accept 
the  license  ;  and  they  say  further  that  they  must  vote 
against  the  canon  as  they  understand  it  shuts  out  lay- 
reading  without  a  license. 

Rev.  Mr.  Corbett — asked  whether  the  licensing  was 
not  now  under  the  control  of  the  Bishop,  and  said  that 
the  Bishop  of  his  own  diocese  had  claimed  it ;  and  the 
Bishop  of  Kansas  had  done  the  same  thing. 

Thk  President  : — They  had  no  right  to  enforce  that 
without  further  legislation. 

Rev.  Mr.  Corbett  : — I  understand  that  the  Honor- 
able gentleman  who  has  ofl'ered  this  amendment  has 
stated  that  he  left  it  in  this  loose  way  in  order  that 
Methodists  or  anybody  may  come  in  and  lay-read. 

Rev.  Dr.  Crane  : — I  have  no  such  intention.  The 
language  of  the  proviso  is  "  provided  that  nothing  here- 
in shall  be  construed  to  forbid  communicants  of  this 
Church  acting  as  lay-readers." 

Rev.  Mr.  Corbett — objected  that  by  this  provision 
lay-readers  not  being  licensed  might  come  in  and  teach 
heterodoxy,  and  he,  therefore,  would  move  to  lay  the 
matter  upon  the  table,  if  the  permission  to  lay-read 
without  license  were  persisted  in. 

Mr.  J.  J.  Pkingle  Smith  : — This  is  a  matter  of  ab- 
solute necessity  in  some  parts  of  the  country,  of  neces- 
sity against  theory.  There  are  many  parishes  in  Soutli 
Carolina  which  are  without  ministers;  and  the  congre- 
gations again  and  again  send  for  some  gentleman  to  lay- 
read,  and  they  would  be  without  worship  at  all  if  some 
gentleman  would  not  lay-read.  This  is  an  emergency 
which  in  the  present  condition  of  our  dioceses  cannot 
be  now  removed.  There  are  gentlemen  willing  where 
the  case  occurs  to  minister  in  this  way ;  and  there  are 
many  parishes  that  are  only  kept  up  in  this  way,  which 
could  not  be  if  this  restriction  were  put  in. 

Rev.  Dr.  Crane  : — I  am  willing  to  take  the  canon 
precisely  as  it  comes  from  the  Committee  on  Canons. 
My  object  in  offering  the  amendment  was  to  get  this 
through  without  debate,  and  without  long  .speeches.  I 
am  anxious  that  the  canon  should  be  adopted ;  but  that 


proviso  carries  with  it  nothing  more  than  is  practised  in 
the  Church  everywhere.  The  rector  of  the  church 
comes  in  and  goes  part  way  through  the  service ;  his 
voice  breaks  down,  or  he  is,  as  I  have  known  myself, 
unable  to  go  through  the  service ;  he  thinks  that  by  the 
time  he  arrives  at  his  sermon,  he  may  be  able  to  preach . 
and  he  calls  some  respectable  communicant  of  his 
church  to  read  for  him  ;  that  is  lay-reading.  It  is  un- 
derstood by  a  large  portion  of  the  House  that  this  is  a 
violation  of  the  canon.  Merely  to  get  rid  of  this  objec- 
tion I  have  proposed  this  proviso.  When  it  is  once 
passed,  if  you  choose  by-and-by,  you  can  strike  it  out. 
But  what  I  want  now  is  to  get  that  canon  through  as 
easily  as  possible. 

A  motion  to  lay  the  canon  on  the  table  was  lost. 
The  question  then  recurring  upon  the  amendment  of 
Rev.  Dr.  Crane,  it  was  adopted. 

The  canon  as  amended  was  then  adopted. 
Rev.  Mr.  Bkeck — staled  that  the  publishers  of  The 
Churchman,  who  were  publishing  a  full  report  of  the 
debates  and  proceedings  of  this  House,  were  ready  to 
receive  subscriptions  for  the  report  in  book  form,  and 
offered  a  resolution,  which  was  adopted,  authorizing  the 
Secretary  of  the  House  to  purchase  ten  copies  of  said 
report  for  the  use  of  the  Convention. 

Rev.  Dr.  Howe — made  a  Report  from  the  Joint  Com- 
mittee to  examine  the  proof-sheets  of  the  proposed 
Standard  Bible  continued  at  the  last  General  Conven- 
tion submitting  the  resolution,  which  was  adopted, — that 
the  Oxford  edition  [1852]  of  the  Bible  be  adopted  as 
the  standard  of  punctuation  and  typography.  The 
committee  was  discharged. 

Rev.  Dr.  Pierce — introduced  a  series  of  resolutions, 
concluding  with  one  for  a  Joint  Committee  of  both 
Houses  to  consider  the  question  whether  foreigners  may 
not  use  the  Liturgy  in  their  own  language,  and  to  re- 
port to  the  next  Convention.     Laid  on  the  table. 

On  motion  of  Rev.  Dr.  Howe  the  House  reconsidered 
its  action  discharging  the  Committee  on  the  Standard 
Bible,  having  been  informed  by  Rev.  Dr.  Howe  that  a 
person  had  stated  to  him  that  a  member  of  his  congre- 
gation was  contemplating  an  appropriation  of  Twenty- 
Five  Thousand  Dollars  for  tlie  purpose  contemplated  by 
the  Committee. 

On  motion,  the  House  adjourned  to  half-past  nine  to- 
morrow morning. 

SIXTEENTH     DAY. 

Saturday,  Oct.  24th,  18G8. 

The  House  met  pursuant  to  adjournment.  Morning 
Prayer  was  said  by  Rev.  Dr.  Bekki.ev  and  Rev.  Dr. 
Reynolds. 

The  benediction   was   pronounced  by   Bisnoi'  Kem- 

PEK. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haicht,  from  the  Committee  on  Canons, 
submitted  report  No.  2T,  with  reference  to  the  proi)Osed 
anu'ndment  of  Canon  5,  Title  .3,  of  "  Congregations  and 
Tarishes,"  by  the  addition  of  a  clause   whereby,  in  a 


132 


certain  contingency,  ,  a  new  parish  may  be  formed, 
without  the  consent  of  ecclesiastical  authority.  The 
committee  regarded  the  proposed  amendment  inexpedi- 
ent— did  not  think  it  a  safe  principle  to  adopt,  that  any 
parish  should  be  formed  without  the  express,  positive 
consent  of  ecclesiastical  authority.  A  resolution  to  this 
effect,  reported  by  the  committee,  was  adopted. 
.  The  Committee  on  Canons  reported  a  canon  for 
adoption,  by  the  House,  on  the  subject  of  divorces  j 
which,  at  the  request  of  the  committee,  was  allowed  to 
lie  on  the  table  to  be  called  up. 

The  Kev.  Dr.  Hubbakd  rose  to  a  personal  explana- 
tion, with  reference  to  yesterday's  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  the  Prayer-Book,  saying  that  the  statement 
of  a  member  of  the  committee,  that  the  resolution  report- 
ed was  not  what  he  had  voted  for,  arose  from  the  en- 
tire misapprehension  of  two  persons,  who  were  not 
present  at  the  time  of  the  action  of  the  committee. 

On  motion  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Rylance,  the  Committee 
on  Arrangements  of  this  House  were  authorized  to  con- 
sult with  any  committee  that  might  be  appointed  by  the 
House  of  Bishops,  and  to  make  arrangements  for  the 
concluding  services. 

Mr.  Demill,  of  Michigan,  offered  the  following  reso- 
lution : 

Resolved,  That  the  thanks  of  the  Uouse  are  due,  and  are 
hereby  tendered,  to  those  who  have  officiated  as  the  choir 
at  the  services  of  this  Convention,  and — 

Resolved,  That  authorities  of  the  diocese  in  which  the 
next  General  Couvi.-ntiou  is  to  be  held  be  desired  to  make 
similar  arrangemeuts  for  music. 

Mr.  O.  Meads  : — I  hope  such  a  resolution  as  that  will 
not  pass.  I  hope  we  may  trust  the  diocese  or  church 
in  which  the  next  Convention  is  to  be  held,  to  make 
such  arrangements  for  us  as  shall  be  suitable.  I  be- 
lieve we  have  in  evei'y  iliocese  a  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  and  I  think  we  ought  to  assume  that  it  is  com- 
petent to  conduct  services  in  a  proper  manner,  and  that 
we  can  leave  it  with  Urmu  to  make  proper  arrange- 
ments. 

Mr.  Demill  : — I  offered  a  similar  resolution  three 
years  ago  ;  and  I  offer  it  again.  Until  all  members  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  are  instructed  as  to 
what  belongs  to  such  a  C'hurch,  I  hope  that  the  House 
will  pass  that  resolution.  With  reference  to  music 
which  I  heard  last  Sunday  in  a  certain  church,  I  would 
say  that  it  was  music;  but  I  could  not  understand  it; 
it  was  not  the  character  of  music  I  want  to  see  the 
Church  adopt.  The  Church  has  adopted  a  certain 
style  of  music,  and  I  want  to  see  it  recognized  by  this 
Convention.  There  was  no  opposition  to  the  resolution 
three  years  ago,  and  there  ought  to  be  none  now.  I 
trust  this  resolution  will  not  be  laid  upon  the  table . 
[Such  a  motion  had  been  made  and  witlnlrawnj  for  1 
think  the  Convention,  into  whatever  diocese  it  goes, 
should  control  the  services.  If  we  go  into  Marylandi 
North  Carolina,  South  Carolina  or  Georgia — though  I 
may    not   go    there  myself — I  do  not  want  the  parisli 


church  to  control  the  Convention.  The  resolution  is 
not  intended  as  any  disrespect  to  the  diocese.  It  was 
not  so  considered  three  years  ago ;  and  I  do  not  see 
how  it  can  be  so  considered  now.  I  want  the  Conven- 
tion to  control  their  services.  When  this  Convention 
opened  at  Trinity  church,  the  music  was  very  satisfac- 
tory ;  it  must  have  been  so  to  every  one  who  attended  ; 
I  have  never  heard  a  single  complaint  of  the  music  at 
the  opening  services.  I  want  the  same  character  and 
style  of  music  when  we  meet  again. 

Mr.  Welsh — said  that  he  thought  this  Convention 
had  no  control  over  the  music  of  the  next  Convention  ; 
that  was  their  business  ;  he  hope&  the  gentleman  would 
withdraw  his  resolution. 

The  resolution  was  withdrawn. 

Hon.  S.  B.  RuGGLEs  offered  a  resolution,  which  was 
adopted,  with  reference  to  the  printing  and  distribution 
of  five  thousand  copies  of  the  journal  of  this  Conven- 
tion. 

George  F.  Houghton,  of  Vermont,  offered  a  resolu- 
tion inviting  the  Rev.  William  Chaun'cey  Langdon,  a 
member  of  the  Committee  on  the  Italian  Reform  Move- 
ment and  its  representative  in  Italy  for  two  years  last 
past,  to  address  the  House  on  the  subject  under  consid- 
eration. 

Gov.  Fish,  while  having  a  hearty  sympathy  with  that 
movement,  hoped  that  the  House  would  establish  no 
such  dangerous  precedent  as  inviting  a  gentleman  to 
address  thein,  who  was  not  a  member  of  the  Conven- 
tion. 

The  resolution  was  then  withdrawn. 

The  following  resolution  was  offered: 

Resolved,  That  it  be  referred  to  the  Connnittee  on  Canons 
to  consider  and  report,  if  it  lie  deemed  expedient,  by  canon 
or  other^visc,  prohibiting  tlie  lioldiug  of  General  Conventions 
in  consecrated  churches. 

The  mover  of  the  resolution  remarked: — Mr.  Presi- 
dent, I  believe  this  Convention  to  be  as  orderly  and  as 
reverential  as  any  which  it  has  been  my  privilege  to 
be  a  member  of;  and  I  do  not  know  that  this  Conven- 
tion is  prepared  now  to  act  upon  a  proposition  like  thisi 
and  I  trust  the  time  is  coming  when  this  council  of  the 
holy  Catholic  Church  will  set  the  example  of  not  seem- 
ing to  desecrate  the  house  of  God  in  any  measure.  I 
have  been  taught  to  believe  that  upon  passing  the 
threshold  of  the  house  of  God  the  voice  is  to  be  hushed, 
and  in  no  case  to  be  heard,  even  in  a  whisper,  save  only 
as  attuned  to  the  prayei-s  and  praises  of  God.  I  trust  to 
see  the  time  when  our  consecrated  hotises  will  be  used 
only  for  that  purpose  for  which  they  were  consecrated, 
being  set  apart  from  all  unhallowed,  worldly  and  com- 
mon uses.  With  this  view,  and  believing  I  am  stand- 
ing on  holy  ground,  and  s[)eaking  not  as  I  believe  we 
sliotdd  in  churches,  I  simply  move  that  this  resolution 
be  referred  to  the  Connnittee  on  Canons. 

Mr.  Welsh,  of  Peniusylvania: — t  should  be  glad  to 
have  the  matter  referred,  because  it  is  a  subject  of  very 


133 


great  importance.  We  all  feci  that  God's  house  should 
have  associations  so  sacred  about  it  as  to  aid  those  who 
desire  to  worsliip.  I  never  saw  a  convention  as  orderly 
as  this ;  yet,  even  here,  habits  in  the  different  parts  of 
the  country  differ  so  much  that  what  is  thought  little 
of  in  one  place  is  regarded  of  much  consequence  in  an- 
other. 

Rev.  Dr.  Rylance: — Wliat  we  need  is  a  large  chap- 
ter-house to  be  built  for  such  a  Convention  as  this.  I 
think  the  time  is  coming  for  it.  It  would,  of  course, 
have  to  stand  in  some  central  portion  of  the  country  ; 
and,  as  it  is  admitted  on  all  hands  that  Cliicago  is  to  be 
the  metropolis  of  the  future,  I  trust  it  is  to  be  the  place 
of  the  chapter-house. 

Hon.  S.  B.  RuG(iLEs:--This  debate,  which  seems  to 
give  so  much  pleasure  to  many  members  of  the  House, 
I  have  not  heard  without  considerable  pain.  It  is  a 
grave  proposition,  introducing  a  measure  in  this  House 
declaring  that  this  Convention  shall  not  be  held  in  the 
house  of  God,  where  it  has  alvvaj's  been  held.  I  should 
hope  that  the  gentleman  would  go  no  further  with  his 
proposition  of  leaving  these  consecrated  places  and  go- 
ing to  places  desecrated.  In  answer  to  my  esteemed 
friend,  I  would  say  that  he  will  have  to  exert  himsef. 
to  produce  anything  more  spacious  than  Tammany  Halll 
And  are  we  to  go  to  Tammany  Hall !  For  one,  I  should 
be  sorry  to  be  left  to  the  mercy  of  any  committee  who 
would  send  us  to  any  such  place,  so  desecrated  by  polit- 
ical strife.  I  should  rather  hope  for  a  withdrawal  of 
tVie  resolution. 

Rev.  Dr.  Hahe  : — I  rise  to  suggest  a  difficulty  in  a 
resolution  of  this  kind.  I  have  attended  here  every  day, 
ond  every  night  at  the  Board  of  Missions  ;  and  I  re- 
member, one  night,  when  we  listened  to  a  very  eloquent 
appeal  from  the  Bi.shop  of  Pittsburg,  that  there  was  a 
Universal  burst  of  applause  in  the  Board  of  Missions, 
and  the  Board  of  Missions  holding  its  meetings  in  a 
consecrated  place.  I  say  universal — I  may  possibly  be 
mistaken — but  it  seemed  to  me  that,  to  the  best  of  my 
recollection,  I  was  the  only  person  in  this  building  that 
refrained  from  loud  applause.  I  do  not  presume  to 
fault  anybody  who  did  so.  I  know  that  such  things 
were  done  in  the  early  ages  of  the  Church.  I  am  not 
approving  of  it,  but  admitting  it.  But  it  does  seem  to 
me  very  difficult  for  myself  to  applaud  in  such  a  place, 
from  long  habit  of  not  giving  vent  to  my  feelings  in  the 
house  of  God.  I  remained  perfectly  still  while  there  was 
a  universal  burst  of  applause.  But  that  was  the  most 
demonstrative  meeting  that  has  been  held  in  any  conse- 
crated building,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  since  the 
opening  of  the  Cotivention.  I  therefore  suggest  that  if 
the  resolution  be  pressed,  to  have  such  a  canon  enacted 
it  must  include  other  meetings  than  those  of  this 
Convention.  If  this  were  the  proper  time — I  should 
like  to  speak  of  much  greater  grievances — that  in  con- 
secrated buililings  pews  are  sold  to  'i'urks  and  infidels 
under  the  auctioneer's  hammer. 


Mr. :— I  think  we  should  be  governed  by 

the  consecration  service.  We  have  the  words  of  the 
consecration  services  thaf'these  houses  are  erected  for  the 
public  worship  of  God  and  separate  from  all  unhallowed, 
worldly,  and  common  uses,  in  order  to  fill  men's  minds 
with  greater  reverence  for  His  glorious  majesty."  I 
contend  that  our  experience,  the  experience  of  rectors 
who  have  had  churches  used  for  other  than  Divine 
services,  is  that  sometime  subsequent  to  these  meetings 
a  feeling  of  irreverence  has  attended  the  minds  of  many 
who  worship  in  the  sanctuary.  It  is  almost  impossible 
for  a  convention  like  this  House,  or  the  Board  of  Missions 
who  sit  in  this  House,  if  they  feel  an  interest  upon  the 
subjects  brought  before  them,  to  repress  an  enthusiastic 
feeling,  and  at  times  an  outburst  of  applause.  These 
things  we  know  are  derogatory  to  the  character,  the  de- 
vout associations  of  this  place,  and  I  hope  there  is  not  a 
true  churchman  who  does  not,  in  the  honest  conviction 
of  his  mind,  wish  for  an  alteration.  The  only  way  in 
which  we  can  do  it  is  by  the  passage  of  a  canon  which 
shall  enact  that  other  places  shall  be  selected.  The  dif- 
ficulty of  having  a  Chapter-house  would  be  this :  a  con- 
vention does  not  assemble  in  one  city  only ;  but  that 
difficulty  might  be  obviated  by  selecting  some  place  of 
secular  meeting.  In  all  the  principal  places  where  the 
Convention  has  assembled,  or  will  assemble,  there  are 
always  places  of  sufficient  capacity  to  accommodate  the 
Convention  ;  and  there  is  no  necessity  for  this  Conven- 
tion ever  assembling  in  the  House  of  God. 

On  motion  the  resolution  was  laid  upon  the  table. 
On  motion.  Judge  Battle  was  allowed  to  make  a  per- 
sonal explanation  with  reference  to  the  canon  on  the 
subject  of  consecration  of  churches,  he  having  been,  on 
yesterday,  suddenly  prevented  from  making  a  speech  on 
the  matter,  by  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table. 

Judge  Battle: — The  object  I  had  in  view  is  not  ex- 
actly answered  [by  leave  to  explain  with  reference  to 
the  canon].  It  will  be  recollected  that  a  precedent  was 
established,  early  in  the  session,  that  any  member  of  the 
Committee  on  Canons  who  had  charge  of  a  measure 
from  the  Committee  on  Canons  should  have  an  oppor- 
tunity of  replying  to  objections.  I  had  the  honor  of 
being  charged  with  this  measure.  At  last  a  motion  was 
made  to  lay  on  the  table.  I  did  not  wish  to  say  anything, 
because  I  had  no  right  to  say  anything  pending  that 
motion.  I  thought  it  was  nothing  more  than  t'.i'ir  that 
after  these  objections  had  come  from  various  (juarters, 
the  House  should  extend  to  me  the  courtesy  to  make 
a  reply  to  the  objections;  after  which,  it  was  com- 
petent to  dispose  of  the  measure  as  might  seem  best. 
An  objection  was  made  by  a  gentleman  from  Connecti- 
cut, which  I  think,  I  could  have  successfully  answered  ; 
and  there  may  have  been  other  objections  to  which  I 
could  have  made  satisfactory  answers.  If  the  canon  is 
taken  up,  I  wish  to  have  an  0[)portunily  to  make  a  reply 
to  these  objections. 

A  motion  was  made  lo  take  the  c  inon  from  the  table 
to  be  acted  upon  at  the  present  time. 


134 


Rev.  Dr.  Mahan  :— I  would  second  the  motion,  be 
cause  it  seems  to  me  that  the  whole  subject  now  rests  in 
a  queer  predicament. 

Rev.  Dr.  Stuebs  :— I  hope  the  House  will  yield  this 
request.     The  canon  was  first  planned  by  me  and  I  put 
the  bantling  into  the  hands  of  the  Committee  on  Canons. 
They  went   to  work  and  dressed    it  up   in  such  a  form 
that  when   it  came  out  I  scarcely  knew  my  own   child 
[Laughter]  ;  and  it  appeared  in  such  ugly  features  that 
the  Convention    would   scarcely  look   at  it.     I  did   not 
want  the  property  qualifications  brought  in.    I  knew  well 
enough  that  there  was  a  difference  of  opinion  upon  that 
point ;  but  there  were  certain  grand  principles  contained 
in  the  canon  which  I  wished  to  have  enunciated  distinct- 
ly  by  this   House ;  for  I  maintain    there   has   been  no 
greater  abuse  in  this  whole  country  than  has  taken  place 
in  reference  to  the  desecration  of  buildings  consecrated 
to    Almighty    God.      Inasmuch     as     the    consecration 
service  is  used  by  the  whole  Church,  it  is  worthy  of  this 
body  to  pass  a  canon  in  reference  to  such  a  service. 
The  motion  to  take  up  the  canon  was  agreed  to. 
Judge  Battle  : — I  must  confess  I  was  taken  some- 
what by  surprise  by  the  action  of  the  House  in  tabling 
the  canon.     I  thought  that  if  any  principle  in  the  world 
commended  it.self  to  the  judgment  of  this  Convention  it 
was  that  a  church  after  being  consecrated  should  not  be 
desecrated  so  far  as  human  means  could  prevent.    That 
principle  is   set  forth  clearly  in  the  first  section  of  this 
proposed  canon.     [Reads  the  first  section]. 

Now,  sir,  that  completely  accomplishes  the  purpose, 
that  after  it  is  consecrated  it  shall  not  be  desecrated, 
not  applied  to  any  unholy  uses.  But  if  not  free  from 
debt,  and  the  title  not  secured,  what  security  has  ttie 

Church  that  the  building  may  not  be  sold  for  debt  ? 

that  some  person  cannot  recover  it,  if  there  be  an  out- 
standing title,  so  that  it  may  be  applied  to  unholy  pur- 
poses ?  As  to  the  objection  raised  by  the  learned  deputy 
from  Connecticut,  that  they  have  a  church  in  Connecti- 
cut so  situated  that  no  title  could  be  secured,  a  gentle- 
man from  the  same  diocese  replied  that  a  long  enjoy- 
ment of  the  property  gave  a  title.  That  was  doubted  : 
I  stated  it  was  good  law— that  it  would  no  doubt  be 
good  law  in  the  part  of  the  country  from  which  I  came. 
I  know  that  the  State  is  not  barred  by  any  ordinary 
Statute  of  Limitations.  In  the  diocese  in  which  I  live 
there  is  a  certain  provision  that  the  State  shall  not  be 
barred.  But  there  is  another  principle  in  Common 
Law  well  known  to  every  gentleman  in  this  House,  that 
there  is  a  presumption  of  a  grant  even  against  the  kin" 
and  certainly  against  the  State.  Now,  it  seems  to  m"' 
that  when  a  church  has  enjoyed  the  privilege  of  location 
upon  land,  even  if  it  belongs  to  the  State  there  would  be 
a  presumption  in  favor  of  the  title,  on  behalf  of  the 
church.  He  says  that  it  belongs  to  New  Haven.  Well 
New  Haven  is  not  a  State ;  it  is  no  more  than  a  private 
individual ;  and  the  ordinary  Statute  of  Limitations 
would  liar  anybody  but  the  Slate ;  and  the  presumption 


of  the  Common  Law  shows  that  even  then  there  ivould 
be  no  such  difficulty  as  the  gentleman  affirms.     But  sup- 
pose they  could  not  get  a  good  title  in  New  Haven  for 
that  property,  is  this  great  principle  to  be  set  aside, 
merely  because  in  any  particular  place  you  cannot  get 
a  title  to  the  property  ?  There  is  no  difficulty  so  far  as 
the  church  now  stands ;  and  there  is  a  mere  possibility 
that  at  some  future  time  that  church  may  be  burned  and 
another  built  in  its  place.     I  don't  tell  the  gentleman  as 
the  yankee  said,  to  keep  it  well  insured  so  that  it  may 
not  be  burned  down  ;  but  if  they  have  not  a  good  title, 
let  them  build  somewhere  where  they  can  get  a  good 
title.     But  I  say  that  Connecticut  is  governed  by  the 
Common  Law  of  the  land.     Is  this  Convention  prepared 
to  say  that  when  a  church  is  once  consecrated,  set  apart 
for  the  purpose  of  worship  of  Almighty  God,  it  may  be 
desecrated  ?     If  it  is,  I  have   nothing   further   to   say. 
This  canon  secures  it  against  such  a  thing.     Those  who 
vote  against  it  do  not  entertain  the  views  I  do.     It  is 
said,  we  had  better  leave  it  to  the  different  dioceses,  and 
let  the  different  dioceses  pass  such  a  law  as  this.   I  think 
we  had  such  a   law,  and  in  our  diocese,  I   believe   our 
bishop  win  never  consecrate  a  church  unless  it  is  free 
from  debt ;  but  it   does  seem  to  me   that  whenever   a 
public  building  is  set  apart  to  the  worship  of  Almighty 
God,  it  should   be  applied  so   far  as  human   means  can 
prevent  to   no  other  purpose.     If  this   first  section   is 
adopted,  then  there  are  two  other  sections  tending  to 
give  security  that  it  shall  be  applied  to  no  other  purpose 
than  this  for  which  it  is  erected.     It  seems  to  me   that 
we  ought  not  to  omit  on  this  occasion,  to  pass  this  canon 
in  order  to  establish,  as  far  as  we  can  by  human  means, 
the  great  principle  that  no  church  when  set  apart  for  the 
purpose  of  worship  of  Almighty  God  shall  ever  be  de- 
voted to  any  other  less  holy  purpose. 

Rev.  Dr.  Beardslev,  of  Connecticut: — I  am  as  much 
in  favor  of  preserving  our  churches  from  desecration  as 
the  learned  Deputy  from  North  Carolina.  I  meant  to 
say  that  Trinity  Church  [New  Haven]  and  some  other 
churches  of  Connecticut  are  built  upon  what  is  called 
public  squares  ;  and  some  of  the  successors  of  those 
early  churches  still  occupy  the  same  sites.  If  they 
should  be  burned  down  or  should  be  displaced  and  oth- 
ers erected,  I  do  not  see  how  under  this  canon  they 
could  receive  consecration.  I  think  the  operation  of  this 
canon  would  be  a  hardship  in  many  cases.  Take  the 
case  of  a  young  vigorous  parish  started  in  a  thrifty  and 
rapidly  growing  parish  composed  of  members  who  are 
in  moderate  circumstances,  of  young  men  just  starting 
in  life.  They  are  full  of  Christian  faith  and  zeal ;  they 
purchase  a  lot  and  erect  a  church  upon  it ;  they  make 
every  exertion  to  meet  the  expenses  of  building,  which 
in  these  times  would  be  burdensome  in  almost  any 
portion  of  the  country.  Suppose  they  are  in  debt  a 
few  thousand  dollars  ?  the  church  is  not  in  peril.  Will 
you  say  to  the  members  of  this  young  parish  that  they 
shall  not  enter  this  church  with  I'oims  of  consecration  ? 


185 


In  Connecticut,  before  the  RcvoUitionary  War,  the 
churches  had  no  consecration.  "We  had  no  Bishop  in 
this  country.  What  was  the  consequence  ?  When  we 
had  a  Bishop,  the  people  did  not  care  to  have  their 
buildings  consecrated.  They  had  occupied  them  for 
forty  or  more  years,  and  they  were  consecrated  by  their 
prayers. 

I  do  not  see  why  this  matter  should  not  be  left  to  the 
different  dioceses  of  our  country.  The  Bishop  knows 
when  the  church  is  in  peril,  and  he  will  not  consecrate 
it  in  that  case.  I  think  it  is  perfectly  safe  to  leave  this 
to  the  dioceses. 

Mr.  N.  H.  Massie,  of  Virginia : — Before  a  vote  is 
taken  on  the  canon  I  think  it  would  be  best  to  have 
the  matter  tested  by  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table.  The 
conventions  of  the  different  dioceses  are  as  competent 
to  protect  churches  from  desecration,  knowing  their 
own  peculiar  customs,  as  this  General  Convention.  In 
fact  il  is  almost  if  not  quite  impossible  for  the  General 
Convention  to  regulate  this  matter,  because  there  are 
so  many  peculiar  exceptions  to  the  rule  in  different 
parts  of  the  country  that  it  would  amount  to  nothing. 
The  vote  was  then  taken  upon  the  motion  to  lay  upon 
the  table,  and  was  carried  by  ayes,  87  ;  noes  65. 

The  Committee  on  Expen,ses  recommended  the  adop- 
tion of  a  resolution  increasing  the  quota  from  two  to 
three  dollars  to  meet  the  incidental  expenses  of  the 
Convention,  and  also  authorizing  the  Secretary  of  the 
House  to  make  if  necessary  additional  assessments ; 
which  resolution  was  adopted. 

Rev.  Ur.  Hakjht — submitted  a  report  of  the  Commit- 
tee on  Canons,  No.  2'J,  with  reference  to  a  proposed 
canon  relative  to  the  Standard  Prayer  Book.  The  com- 
mittee reported  that  in  their  opinion  it  is  not  expedient 
to  adopt  the  same,  and  offered  a  resolution  to  the  effect 
that  a  note  should  be  inserted  in  future  editions  of 
the  Prayer  Book,  specifying  that  alterations  had  been 
made  in  several  of  the  late  editions  heretofore  printed. 
Rev.  Dr.  Haigiit — from  the  Committee  on  Canons, 
submitted  a  report  proposing  an  amendment  to  Canon 
2,  Title  2,  "Offences  for  which  Ministers  may  be  tried 
and  punished."  This  first  section,  said  Dr.  Haight,  is 
entirely  re-written,  to  make  it  like  a  corresponding 
canon  on  the  trial  of  Bishops,  which  was  prepared  with 
very  great  care,  and  is  supposed  to  contain  the  latest 
views  of  this  House  upon  the  subject  of  the  trial  of  all 
orders  of  the  clergy.  It  is  in  order  to  get  rid  of  the 
slight  inconveniences  which  have  resulted  from  the 
phraseology  of  this  canon.  Section  2  is  the  same  as 
the  section  in  the  existing  canon  except  in  so  far  as  the 
designation  of  offences  is  concerned.  The  House  will 
observe  that  the  change  proposed  in  this  canon  relates 
simply  to  the  enumeration  of  offenses  for  which  minis- 
ters may  be  tried  and  punished. 

Rev.  Dr.  Adams  : — I  would  suggest  that  an  addition- 
al clause  should  be  added  so  that  it  may  say — "the  re- 
ftjsal  to  submit  to  ecclesiastical  sentence  duly  passed." 


[Laughter.]  1  believe  that  is  not  in  the  list  of  crimes. 
I  believe  it  is  necessary  under  the  circumstances.  Our 
ecclesiastical  court  is  a  court  simply  of  the  Church  and 
has  no  power  to  enforce  its  sentence  otherwise  than  by 
the  power  of  the  court.  By  putting  this  in  we  shall 
stop  a  gap  that  may  admit  a  good  deal  of  mischief. 
Here  were  received  from  the  House  of  Bishops — 
Message  No.  32,  informing  the  House  of  Deputies  of 
the  adoption  by  them  of  a  canon  on  the  subject  of  mar- 
riage and  divorce. 

Message  No.  3:3,  a.sking  the  prayers  of  this  House 
while  the  House  of  Bishops  is  engaged  on  the  subject  of 
Indian  Missions. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight,  (resuming):— the  gentleman  has 
suggested  an  amendment  to  the  proposed  canon.  I  can 
not  accept  it  because  it  is  desirable  to  have  it  corres- 
pond with  the  canon  on  the  trial  of  Bishops.  Until  it 
is  proposed  to  change  that,  it  is  not  worth  while  to  ac- 
cept this  amendment. 

Rev.  Dr.  Adams  : — I  do  not  suppose  any  member  of 
the  House  of  Bishops  would  be  capable  of  that  oll'ense. 
Mr.  Welsh  of  Pennsylvania : — I  learn  that  the  House 
of  Bishops  after  the  pattern  of  St.  Paul,  have  asked  the 
elders  and  brethren  to  pray  for  them,  that  they  may  be 
guided  in  this  matter  of  the  Indian  Bishopric.  1  move 
that  the  House  unite  in  prayer.  The  motion  was  agreed 
to. 

A  resolution  was  then  offered  expressing  the  interest 
and  sympathy  of  the  House  regarding  the  Italian  Re- 
form-movement. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mahan  : — I  move  the  adoption  of  this  reso- 
lution. In  regard  to  this  Italian  movement  we  need  to 
be  more  enlightened  than  we  are  to  have  any  warm 
feeling  about  it.  But  there  is  no  doubt  that  God's 
spirit  is  moving  upon  the  face  of  the  earth  in  those  old 
countries  in  a  peculiar  way  ;  and  it  is  right  that  our 
branch  of  the  Church  should  be  at  least  awake  to  a 
subject  which  may  be,  for  aught  we  know,  one  of  vast 
importance.  I  can  only  say  in  reference  to  this,  that 
the  few  persons  who  have  taken  the  pains  to  examine 
the  publications  of  the  Italian  reformers,  and  get  some 
information  on  the  subject,  are  satisfied  that  there  is 
a  very  important  and  profound  movement  going  on. 
We  do  not  undertake  to  be  prophets,  to  say  what  it 
will  come  to  ;  but  there  is  one  thing  certain,  that  if  true 
Christians  will  be  alive  and  will  direct  their  prayers  to 
God,  and  will  sympathize  with  what  is  good  in  the 
movement,  it  will  come  to  a  much  better  end  than  if 
they  remain  entirely  inert  and  express  no  kind  of  sym- 
pathy whatever.  As  these  resolutions  are  simply  ex- 
pressive of  an  interest  in  the  subject,  there  can  be  no 
harm  in  passing  them.  I  move  the  adoption  of  the 
resolutions  reported. 

Mr.  Welsh  : — I  rise  to  second  the  motion.  I  hoped 
that  gentlemen  more  familiar  with  the  subject  would 
second  it.  Our  Bishop  of  Pennsylvania,  took  a  deep 
interest  in  the  movement;  he  saw  its  ripeness,  and 


136 


thanked  God,  and  took  courage.  Less  tlian  is  proposed 
in  those  resolutions  surely  we  could  not  do.  A 
presbyter  of  our  Church  has  been  examining  the  field  ; 
he  finds  it  is  ripe.  They  are  looking  to  this  great  re- 
public for  S3'mpathy  ;  and  all  they  ask  is  that  we  should 
look  upon  them,  and  smile  upon  them,  and  pra}'  for 
them.  The  telegraph  has  given  notice  that  in  Spain 
there  is  something  of  a  similar  kind  ;  and  just  in  pro- 
portion as  this  Church  does  the  work  of  Christ  may  we 
expect  to  sec  that  corrupt  Church  of  Rome  yielding.  I 
think  we  can  do  nothing  less  than  pass  resolutions  of 
this  kind  and  strengthen  the  hands  of  those  engaged  in 
the  work. 

Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin  : — For  two  or  three  years  past  I 
have  been  in  the  habit,  more  or  less,  of  reading  the 
Italian  periodicals  in  relation  to  this  subject.  And  have 
also  had  a  pretty  familiar  acquaintance  with  an  Italian 
gentleman,  an  earnest  young  man,  who  has  come  into 
our  Church,  and  who  has  familiarized  himself  with  the 
movement  ;  and  it  seems  to  me  that  the  resolutions  pro- 
posed do  not  go  any  further  than  we  may  safely  go. 
I  understand  there  are  three  different  classes  in  this 
Italian  movement.  There  is  a  political  movement ;  a 
reformed  catholic  movement ;  and  there  is  the  enlarged 
Protestant  movement  of  the  Waldensians.  Even  as  re- 
gards the  party  whose  interests  are  chiefly  political,  I 
do  not  see  why  we  may  not  sympathize  with  their  neg- 
ative movement — not  so  far  as  they  are  running  into  in- 
fidelity— but  if  their  efforts  should  result  in  an  emanci- 
pation of  Italj'  from  the  Pope,  so  far  we  might  sympa- 
thize even  with  that  movement.  The  other  movement 
of  the  religious  party  as  far  as  it  goes  is  just  what  we 
may  desire.  It  simply  does  not  go  so  far  as  we  may 
desire,  not  so  far  as  I  would  desire  before  I  could  give 
it  my  hearty  sympathies.  There  is  no  disposition  so 
far  as  we  can  learn  to  abandon  the  supremacy  of  the 
doctrines  of  the  Romish  Church,  but  they  look  chiefly 
to  a  reform  in  discipline  ;  but  if  that  reform  take  such  a 
direction  as  we  may  hope  in  carrying  it  out,  aided  by 
the  prayers  of  true  Christians,  the  Italian  reformers  may 
be  led  to  go  farther  even  to  reforming  tlieir  errors  in 
doctrine.  And  as  to  the  other  part  of  the  movement, 
the  Waldensian  movement,  I  do  not  know  why  we  may 
not  sj'mpathize  with  that,  so  far  as  it  is  a  tendency  to 
the  purification  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  and  the  enlarge- 
ment of  a  true  knowledge  of  the  Gospel.  And,  there- 
fore, with  simple  knoM'ledge  of  the  facts  of  the  ca.se,  I 
am  ready  with  the  gentleman  who  has  preceded  me,  to 
heartily  endorse  the  resolutions  as  I  understand  them. 

Mr. : — It  seems  to  me  that  there  is  a  phrase  in 

that  resolution  which  might  better  be  omitted.  The 
phrase  is  "  the  glory  of  Italy."  I  suppose  there  is  noohjec- 
tion  on  the  part  of  any  one  to  sympathize  with  whatever 
may  tend  to  the  glory  of  God  and  the  prosperity  of  His 
Church.  I  hope  that  phrase  may  be  stricken  out.  [The 
Secretary — It  is  true  glory].  The  term  "  true  glory" 
is  not  exceptionable. 

Rev.  Dr.  Rylance  : — It  may  be  that  the  strict  order 


and  discipline  of  this  House  properly  forbid  the  possibil- 
ity of  one  from  without  coming  upon  this  floor  and 
speaking  to  us  upon  this  matter  ;  yet  I  am  quite  con- 
fident that  in  attempting  to  arrive  at  the  just  apprecia- 
tion of  this  matter  and  thus  intelligently  to  pass  these 
resolutions,  we  suflfer  very  seriously ;  for  it  appears, 
apart  from  the  document  read,  we  have  not  a  great 
deal  of  information  on  this  subject  in  this  House,  at  least 
it  does  not  seem  that  we  are  likely  to  get  at  it.  I  am 
quite  sure,  to  pass  those  resolutions  with  any  sincerity  of 
affection,  we  need  such  information — we  need  more  than 
is  generally  known.  For  one,  I  have  lately  been  down 
the  Italian  peninsula,  and  I  found  very  little  evidence 
of  the  reform  movement  there.  I  did  hear  some  things 
damaging  to  it ;  and  I  for  one,  should  like  to  ask  if  we 
can  get  in  a  proper,  legal,  and  orderly  way  an  answer 
to  a  question  like  this,  as  to  what  kind  of  material  as  yet 
stands  out  from  the  Church  of  Rome  legitimately  m 
sympathy  with  this  reform  movement  ?  Is  it  chiefly,  al- 
most exclusively,  what  you  might  call  the  waste  mate- 
rial of  the  Romish  priesthood?  oris  it,  to  any  hopeful 
extent,  composed  of  men  who  are  representatives  of 
the  best  type  of  the  priesthood  ?  I  heard  hints  there 
by  persons  knowing  the  facts,  stating  that  the  men  who 
have  as  yet  come  out  to  speak  and  act  in  sympathy  with 
the  movement,  are  men  who  are  encumbered  with  im- 
moralities. I  do  not  say  all,  but  I  say  many.  And  there- 
fore we  should  understand  a  matter  like  this  in  order 
intelligently  and  conscientiously,  to  give  our  view  as 
to  what  is  the  strength  of  the  reform  movement.  I 
should  like  to  know  how  far  this  middle  movement  open- 
ly and  expressly  cuts  itself  loose  from  Romish  error  and 
falsehood  ;  for  instance,  how  far  it  has  expressed  itself 
upon  a  point  like  this,  namely,  the  supremacy  of  the 
Bishop  of  Rome.  In  order  that  we  may  pass  these  reso- 
lutions, I  ask  that  some  one,  if  any  one  is  prepared, 
should  answer  such  questions  as  these. 

Rev.  Dr.  Huntington  : — The  Rev.  Mr.  Langdon 
who  has  made  the  investigation  in  Italy,  has  no  place  in 
this  House,  and  is  unable  to  make  an  answer  to  the  ques- 
tions raised  here  ;  and  it  is  apparent  to  the  whole  House 
that  the  questions  cover  a  wide  ground  and  require  a 
long  time  to  answer  them.  It  may,  however,  be  said 
that  a  commission  of  an  informal  kind  was  established 
at  the  last  Triennial  Convention  ;  and  of  that  informal 
commission  thither,  Mr.  Langdon  has  been  the  agent. 
There  are  several  clergymen  of  our  Church  who 
are,  judging  from  his  correspondence,  competent  to  form 
a  judgment.  That  correspondence  is  to  a  certain  ex- 
tent confidential  necessarily  ;  for  it  would  be  impossi- 
ble, I  suppose,  to  bring  before  the  public  all  the  facts 
pertaining  to  this  matter  without  compromising  the  best 
success  of  the  movement.  I  only  rise  for  the  pur- 
pose of  saying  that  having  had  access  to  these  documents, 
and  personal  acquaintance  with  the  Rev.  Mr.  Lang- 
don, I  have  the  utmost  confidence  in  what  he  has  done 
and  is  doing.     He  seems  to  be  acting  with  extraordina- 


137 


ry  prudence  and  discretion.  It  seems  to  me  that  lie  is 
acting  for  the  true  interests  of  the  Church  of  Christ  and 
for  the  glory  of  God.  Questions  have  arisen  of  a  very 
delicate  and  complicated  character  with  regard  to  cer- 
tain individuals  who  lead  in  tliis  movement  in  Italy. 
There  has  been  a  continual  controversy  carried  on  in 
the  Church  papers  in  England,  in  which  controversy 
several  able  writers  are  in  the  field  and  are  taking  part. 
I  think  if  all  that  is  known  upon  the  subject  were 
spread  before  the  House,  the  members  could  come  at 
once  to  one  conclusion,  that  is,  that  we  shall  be  safe,  we 
shall  be  advancing  the  interest  of  the  cause  of  Chiist, 
by  adopting  the  resolutions  and  seconding  Mr.  Langdon's 
exertions  in  every  way  in  our  power. 

Rev.  Charles  Breck: — In  this  movement  we  see  a 
most  remarkable  fulfilment  of  the  written  declaration  of 
Jarvis  when  he  was  in  Italy,  and  he  held  confidential 
intercourse  with  quite  a  number  of  the  dignitaries  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  who  in  confidence,  and  knowing  that 
he  could  not  betray  that  confidence,  intimated  to  him 
their  deepest  regret  that  they  did  not  occupy  the  posi- 
tion of  the  Clergy  of  the  Church  of  England.  And  I 
think  that  in  the  developments  that  are  going  on  now, 
in  the  open  and  bold  manner  in  which  some  of  these 
reformers  are  speaking  out,  we  do  but  see  the  fulfil- 
ment of  the  predictions  that  Jarvis  told  us  some  of  us 
would  live  to  see  realized ;  I  think  if  we  could  look  up- 
on the  faces  of  the  men  that  Mr.  Langdon  has  come  into 
contact  with,  we  should  be  so  deeply  impressed  that  we 
would  say  that  these  are  representative  men,  that  we 
would  feel  that  they  were  as  remarkable  a  body  of  men 
of  reformers  as  the  world  has  ever  .seen  or  ever  looked 
upon.  One  of  these  distinguished  men,  who  has  been 
thrown  into  prison  twenty  times  for  openly  proclaiming 
the  truth — if  you  could  look  upon  that  man,  you  would 
feel  that  he  might  be  placed  by  the  side  of  the  noblest 
men  of  the  sixteenth  century  ;  and  we  may  all  of  us 
honour  Count  Tasca,  who  now  venerable,  bowed  down 
by  years  and  by  suffering,  yet  boldly  does  all  he  can  to 
aid  the  movement,  and  boldly  supplies  Christian  litera- 
ture so  far  as  means  will  allow,  to  certain  persons  who 
go  out  into  the  valleys  distributing  this  literature  for  the 
advancement  of  the  Christian  Church.  And  there  is 
a  remarkable  fact  stated  in  this  report,  that  these  men, 
in  looking  into  antiquity  and  into  Holy  Scripture,  have 
worked  out  for  themselves  just  such  a  Church  as  we 
have  in  this  country — more  nearly  like  our  Church, 
than  that  of  any  branch  of  the  Church  in  the  world. 
But,  as  the  gentleman  who  has  just  taken  his  seat  has  said, 
there  is  so  much  of  this  that  cannot  be  openly  brought 
forward,  that  we  have  to  rely  upon  one  of  our  own  cler- 
gy and  one  of  the  English  clergy  for  much  of  our  infor- 
mation in  regard  to  this  matter. 

Mr.  Rdggi.es  : — I  feel  called  upon  to  add  a  word  upon 
the  word  "glory."  The  question  seems  to  be  whether 
in  this  religious  body  we  can  in  any  way  allude  to  the 
welfare  or  glory  of  a  nation.  We  have  a  precedent  in 
our  action  at  the  first  meeting  of  this  Church  which  con- 
18 


gratulated  George  Washington  upon  his  election  as 
chief  magistrate  of  the  United  States,  to  which  the 
bishops  replied  most  affectionately  and  respectfully  ; 
which  seems  to  establish  the  principle  for  me  that  this 
Church  may  look  to  the  secular  welfare  of  a  nation. 

Rev.  Dr.  Rvlancb: — I  would  not  have  it  thought  and 
understood  that  I  am  unfriendly  to  this  movement.  My 
heart  is  in  it.  Mr.  Langdon  may  understand  that  I  am 
not  unfriendly  to  it,  but  simply  wish  to  elicit  informa- 
tion. I  am  a  friend  to  the  movement,  but  I  feel  that 
truth  never  fears  light. 

The  question  then  being  taken  on  the  resolution  from 
the  House  of  Bishops  in  regard  to  the  Italian  movement, 
this  House  concurred ;  as  also  in  another  resolution  from 
the  House  of  Bishops  continuing  the  joint  committee 
on  Religious  Reform  in  Italy,  and  adding  three  laymen- 

On  motion  the  House  proceeded  to  consider  the  mes- 
sage from  the  House  of  Bishops  on  the  subject  of 
divorces. 

The  proposed  canon  was  then  read  by  the  Secretary 
as  follows : 

The  ministers  of  this  Church  shall  not  unite  in  matri- 
mony any  persons  of  whom  one  has  been  divorced  for  any 
cause  arising  subsequent  to  the  previous  marriage,  other 
than  adultery  ;  nor  a  person  divorced  for  his  or  her  own 
adultery.  For  the  purpose  of  this  canon,  divorce  is 
hereby  defined  to  be  ^^  divorce  a  vinculo  matrimonii," 
formally  decreed  by  a  civil  court. 

Mr.  RuGGLES  : — I  would  state  a  preliminary  question 
which  concerns  the  form  of  proceeding  in  this  House. 
It  involves  the  question  offered  by  my  friend  from  South 
Carohna  as  to  the  effect  of  a  resolution  from  this  House 
as  distinguished  from  a  canon.  As  I  understood  my 
friend  a  resolution  was  superior  to  a  canon. 

The  importance  of  a  resolution  is  now  manifest ;  be- 
cause there  is  a  resolution  standing  on  our  files  and  part 
of  our  record  on  this  very  subject,  which,  if  it  has  the 
effect  of  a  canon,  makes  the  passage  of  the 
canon,  unnecessary.  The  resolution  passed  in  1808, 
May  26th,  is  this:  "Resolved  that  it  is  the  sense 
of  this  Church  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  law  of  God, 
and  the  ministers  of  this  Church  shall  not  unite  in  mat- 
rimony any  person  who  is  divorced  unless  it  be  on  ac- 
count of  the  other  party  having  been  guilty  of  adultery.' 
There  is  a  resolution  that  establishes  the  law,  if  a  reso- 
lution can  do  so. 

Mr.  Tazewell  Taylor,  of  Virginia : — If  I  understand 
what  the  question  is,  it  is  upon  the  adoption  of  the  can- 
on. I  beg  leave  to  say  that  no  member  of  this  House 
more  heartily  feels  the  sentiment  that  divorces  are  con- 
trary to  the  law  of  God,  and  no  man  has  done  more  than 
1  to  throw  every  obstacle  in  the  way  of  divorces.  1 
would  not  consent  to  be  an  attorney  in  any  divorce 
case.  But  there  are  legal  difficulties  in  passing  a  canon 
of  this  kind.  A  canon  would  be  inoperative  except  in 
so  far  as  it  expresses  the  sentiment  of  the  convention. 
A  minister  in  my  State — 1  don't  know  how  it  may  be  in 
other  States — is  a  civil  officer.  He  has  to  go  before  a 
court  and  obtain  permission  to  celebrate  the  ceremony 


138 


of  matrimduy.  Kegels  an  appointment  and  the  condi- 
tion of  the  appointment  is  that  he  will  not  celebrate  the 
rites  of  matrimony  between  persons  prohibited  from 
marrying  by  the  laws  of  the  State.  If  he  refuses  to  per- 
form the  ceremony  whei'e  there  is  no  legal  obstacle,  he 
is  liable  to  a  penalty.  Our  canon  cannot  override  the 
civil  law ;  it  cannot  destroy  the  civil  function  of  the 
minister. 

Rev.  Mr.  Perkins,  of  Ky.  : — Will  the  gentleman  al- 
low me  to  interrupt  him  for  one  moment?  I  have  never 
so  understood  the  license  that  a  minister  receives  from 
the  civil  officer  as  compelling  him  to  perform  the  rite  of 
matrimony  in  the  case  in  question.  It  is  a  permission 
for  him  to  do  .so ;  but  he  can  determine  for  himself 
whether  he  will  perform  the  rite  or  not. 

Rev.  Di-.  Andkews  : — A  man  might  have  aright  to  sue 
[a  minister  for  not  pei  forming  the  rite.s  of  marriage]  but 
every  man  knows  it  would  be  futile  to  sue  in  Virginia. 

Mr.  Taylor  : — That  may  be  so,  and  why  put  it  in 
the  form  of  a  canon  'i 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead  : — A  resolution  is  insufficient.  It  has 
been  brought  up  several  times  in  Connecticut,  and  the 
Bishop  has  always  said  the  resolution  does  not  bind  you 
not  to  perform  the  service ;  and  you  must  do  what  you 
think  best.  My  advice  is  not  to  perform  the  service, 
but  if  you  see  fit  to  do  it  you  have  a  right  to  do  it.  I 
know  one  case  in  which  a  clergyman  refused,  by  the 
Bishop's  advice,  to  perform  the  ceremony ;  but  the  very 
parties  have  gone  to  another  clergyman  and  had  the 
service  performed  in  that  very  State.  Thei-e  have  been 
cases  in  the  State  of  Connecticut  where  clergymen  in 
the  Komish  Church  have  decided  "  I  will  net  do  such 
and  such  a  service."  Cases  have  been  brought  up  be- 
fore the  civil  courts,  and  there  has  not  been  an  instance 
in  which  there  has  been  a  civil  action  brought  against  a 
Romish  Priest  for  declining  to  violate  the  law  of  bis  own 
Chm-ch,  where  the  clergyman  could  say  I  am  forbidden 
to  perform  the  rite,  where  he  has  not  been  sustained  by 
the  court  in  his  refusal.  I  do  want  to  have  this  canon 
passed,  that  our  clergymen  may  be  placed  in  a  similar 
position. 

Mr.  Taylor,  of  Virginia: — I  wish  the  Convention 
to  understand  my  objection.  The  minister  does  not  ar- 
rive at  his  authority  by  virtue  of  his  ordination  ;  and  it 
is  not  proper  to  pass  a  canon,  while  it  is  perfectly  proper 
to  pass  such  a  resolution. 

Rev.  Br.  Clark,  of  Connecticut: — The  clergy  of  the 
denominations  within  the  last  two  years  have,  started 
by  the  venerable  President  of  Yale  College  and  others, 
brought  memorials  on  this  subject  of  Divorce  l>efbre  the 
State  Legislature,  but  they  were  put  aside.  Our  own 
Diocesan  Convention  passed  unanimously  resolutions  in- 
structing the  delegates  to  memorialize  this  House  that 
something  may  be  done  in  this  matter.  The  fact  was 
brought  before  us  that  the  number  of  divorces  was  one 
tenth  of  the  number  of  marriages.  That  is  an  awful 
State  of  things.     And  it  is  equally  as  bad  in  Massachu- 


setts. I  do  hope  we  shall  not  separate  until  we  have 
something  enabling  us  to  say  positively  "  I  cannot  per- 
form this  service,  and  I  will  not."  I  have  said  I  never 
perlbrmed  the  service  for  any  who  have  been  divorced 
for  any  thing  less  than  adultery.  I  hope  we  shall  have 
a  canon  under  which  we  can  protect  ourselves. 

Rev.  Dr.  Stubbs,  of  New  Jersey  : — The   argument 
used  by  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  is  one  which  has 
been  frequently  used  in  this  body  before  to-day.     I  wish 
it  might  be  met.     It  was  a  very  favorite  argument  with 
our  venerable  and  much  lamented  friend.  Judge  Cham- 
bers— I  mean  the  argument  derived  from  the  Civil  Law 
— whether  an  Ecclesiastical  law  should  not  be  enforced         ,  .  ' 
because  it  comes  into  contSECt  with  the   Civil  Law.     He   ~  f^^ 
has  brought  'forward  the  strongest  argument  in  favor  of 
making  this  a  canon.     Suppose  the  Civil  Law  compelled 
a  clergyman  to  perform  the  marriage.     Then  let  that 
clergyman  resist  the  law  and  be  punished,  and  in  that 
way  you  will  most   thoroughly  enforce  the   law  of  the 
Church.     That  is  what  John  the  Baptist  did  when  the 
necessity  came  up  for  rebuking  Herod.     He  did  it,  and 
paid  the  penalty  by  being  put  into  prison ;  and  that  is 
the  strongest  attestation  which  he  could   make   to   the   ' 
truth.     I  want  to  see  clei'gymen  stand   up  and  A)   the       ^^ 
truth,  and  by  being  punished  proclaim  the  truth   to  the  ' 

world. 

The  President  : — Is  there  any  law  anywhere  in  the 
world  compelling  a  clergyman  to  perform  the  rites  of 
marriage  ? 

A  Deputy: — With  becoming 'diffidence  I  must  ven- 
ture to  beg  that  more  consideration  shall  be  given  to 
the  matter  before  the  Convention  enact  a  canon  upon  it. 
Circumstances  of  duty  have  within  the  last  few  years 
compelled  clergymen  of  our  Church  to  investigate  this 
matter  strictly  and  carefully  in  the  Scriptures,  and  many 
of  them  are  convinced  that  neither  the  provisions  of  a 
canon  nor  even  the  expression  of  an  opinion  on  the 
part  of  the  House  of  Bishops  comes  up  to  the  standard 
laid  down  in  the  Gospel  upon  this  matter.  Many  of 
them  are  satisfied  that  according  to  the  .Scripture  there 
are  but  two  classes  of  marriage  to  be  considered  :  one 
class  which  is  vitiated  by  crime  committed  beforehand, 
and  that  is  the  only  class  in  which  divorce  is  proper, 
so  that  the  parties  divorced  may  be  again  married,  and 
that  all  valid  marriages  are  indissoluble.  Therefore  I 
would  respectfully  offer  as  an  amendment : 

liesoloed,  That  the  subject  of  message  number  — 
from  the  House  of  Bishops  be  referred  for  further  con- 
sideration to  a  special  committee  of  three  clergymen  and 
two  legal  gentlemen  to  report  upon  at  the  next  General 
Convention. 

-  A  Clerical  Deputy,  from  Virginia : — I  hope  this 
proceeding  will  not  take  the  shape  of  a  resolution  but  a 
well-defined  canon.  I  suppose  it  can  hardly  be  ques- 
tioned that  if  passed  in  the  shape  of  a  concurrent  reso- 
lution it  can  have  nothing  but  an  advisory  influence  up- 
on the  clergy,  whereas  if  it  is  put  in  a  canon  it  must 
have  a  regular  and  uniform  effect — that  there  can  b? 


139 


any  difficulty  in  enforcing  a  canon  of  the  Churcb,  I  am 
not  willing  to  believe.  I  would  like  here  to  say  that  my 
colleague  and  friend  has  brought  us  into  precisely  the 
right  attitude.  It  is  true,  as  he  states,  that  before  a  min- 
ister can  celebrate  the  rite  of  matrimony,  lie  must  pro- 
cure a  license,  which  license  is  his  authority  for  performing 
that  service  ;  yet  my  friend  will  remember  that  when 
an  application  is  made  to  the  court,  the  first  question 
asked  is  whether  he  is  a  minister  in  good  standing  of 
some  body  of  Christians — authorized  or  set  apart  accord- 
ing to  their  own  rites  and  ceremonies.  No  man  can  go 
forward  and  obtain  a  license  to  perform  the  ceremony 
unless  he  is  such  a  minister.  Jf  we  have  a  canon  of 
regulation  on  the  subject  our  ministers  cannot  apply  in 
any  other  wise  than  as  ministers  of  the  Prptestant  Epis- 
copal Church.  So  far,  therefore,  from  there  being  any 
dilBculty,  if  he  recuse  to  conform  to  that  he  could  not 
obtain  the  license.  There  is  no  difficulty  in  this  case  at 
all.  I  hope  it  will  not  be  referred  to  a  special  commit- 
tee to' report  hereafter.  I  hope  that  it  will  be  referred 
to  our  own  Committee  on  Canons  and  brought  back  to 
us  ready  for  our  action. 

Mr.  Welsh  : — I  hope  there  will  be  no  reference.  A 
resolution  is  passed  meiely  to  govern  the  present  House  ; 
in  a  year  it  is  a  dead  letter,  whereas  a  canon  is  a  per- 
manent law;  and  the  importance  of  this  canon  can 
hardly  be  overstated.  It  so  happens  that  in  one  depart- 
ment of  labor  to  which  I  have  been  called  there  is  a 
special  need  of  it.  There  is  an  especial  need  of  it  with 
reference  to  what  obtains  in  England  in  certain  dis- 
tricts, a  sort  of  divorce  or  exchange  of  wives,  which  is 
about  as  frequent  as  in  the  West  India  plantations. 
They  say  in  England  that  a  divorce  is  expensive,  and 
that  these  exchanges  or  divorces  without  legal  proceed- 
ings have  become  a  common  thing.  Those  persons 
come  to  this  country ;  and  I  know  that  the  rectors  of 
some  of  our  parishes  have  been  put  in  a  position  most 
uncomfortable  to  themselves.  They  go  to  one  mini.ster 
to  be  married  and  he  refuses  to  marry  them,  and  then 
they  go  to  another  who  performs  the  ceremony.  Now, 
with  this  canon  they  will  all  simply  say  that  they  are 
restrained  by  the  law  of  the  Church.  They  may  go 
elsewhere,  but  all  the  moral  power  of  the  Churcli  will 
be  brought  in  the  right  direction.  It  will  be  a  sad  day 
in  our  country  if  we  ever  reach  the  point  they  have  in 
some  portions  of  Great  Britain.  The  looseness  of  mat- 
rimonial ties  is  fearful,  not  only  among  the  working 
classes  but  the  upper  cla.s.ses.  I  think  the  Convention 
is  prepared  to  act  upon  this  question.  In  the  House  of 
Bishops  it  has  been  carefully  thought  over,  and  it  has 
been  thought  over  by  nearly  every  member  in  this 
House ;  for  there  has  been  much  written  and  said  on 
the  subject  for  a  long  time. 

Mr. : — I  am  unwilling  for  a  moment  to 

occupy  the  time  of  the  House  if  it  were  not  simply  to 
speak  of  a  marked  defect  in  this  canon.  The  object  of 
the  canon   is,  I  suppose,  or   the  object  of  the  Church, 


would  be  to  prevent  the  celebration  of  marriage  between 
persons  who  have  been  divorced,  only  during  the  life- 
time of  both  parties.  In  case  one  of  the  parties  di- 
vorced should  die,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  other  should 
be  free  to  marry — that  the  objection  would  no  longer 
exist.  But  this  canon  prohibits  marriage  of  the  surviv- 
ing person. 

Rev.  Mr.  Hanckei,  : — Rather  than  not  have  a  canon 
upon  this  subject,  I  would  prefer  a  canon  making  the 
violation  of  the  canon  degradation  to  any  minister,  of 
any  State,  who  should  perform  such  a  service.  A  gen- 
tleman has  said  that  it  might  be  accomplished  by  a  res- 
olution. But  it  should  be  remembered  that  no  clergy- 
man is  liable  to  trial  and  punishment  under  a  resolu- 
tion. He  is  liable  to  presentment,  and  trial,  and  pun- 
ishment for  the  violation  of  a  canon.  A  gentleman  on 
my  left  proposed  to  refer  thi.s  matter  to  a  special  com- 
mittee, because  the  minds  of  all  men  are  not  clear  upon 
the  special  point,  which  point  is,  whether  or  not  adul- 
tery does  clearly  sever,  before  God  and  man,  the  matri- 
monial tie,  so  as  to  allow  the  guiltless  party  to  marry. 
I  know  there  are  differences  of  opinion  upon  that  sub- 
ject— differences  which  will  always  continue,  and  which 
no  committee,  no  matter  how  long  it  may  sit,  will 
finally  settle  ;  but,  upon  the  other  great  point  before 
us,  that  divorce  is  a  crime  before  God  and  man,  a  sin  so 
great  over  this  land  as  to  bring  down  the  direst  judg- 
ments of  Heaven  upon  us,  I  don't  believe  there  is  a 
clergyman  who  is  not  ready  to  vote  upon  it.  I  glory 
that  I  live  in  a  State  in  which  no  case  of  divorce  has 
ever  occurred.  And  just  at  this  time,  when  we  are 
threatened  with  a  change,  I  do  implore  from  this  Con- 
vention the  unanimous  passage  of  a  canon  prohibiting 
any  clergyman  of  our  Church  from  so  soiling  his  robes, 
from  so  demeaning  his  office,  through  the  fear  of  man, 
as  to  unite,  in  matrimony,  those  whom  he  cannot  unite 
in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  God  has  said, 
whose  voice  is  echoed  by  this  Church,  that  those  whom 
He  has  joined  together  no  man  may,  nor  no  man  can, 
no  matter  what  may  be  the  laws  of  man,  put  asunder. 

Rev.  Mr.  Wyatt  : — It  has  been  suggested  as  an  oli- 
jection  to  this  canon  that  it  makes  one  exception  in  its 
action,  and  that  exception  is  supposed  to  be  made  on  the 
warrant  of  Holy  Scripture.  It  is  believed  by  man}' 
who  have  carefully  examined  that  Holy  Scripture,  that 
it  does  not  afford  that  warrant,  and  that  a  strict  trans- 
lation of  it  will  show  that  only  in  those  cases  in  which 
the  marriage  is  vitiated  beforehand  should  divorces  be 
allowed.  It  is  to  make  the  uuitter  stronger  that  it  is 
proposed  to  refer  it  to  a  committee. 

Mr. : — I  am  perfectly  aware  that  such 

differences  of  opinion  exist,  but  I  do  not  think  we  ought 
to  complicate  this  canon  by  entering  into  that  question. 
We  can  pass  it  in  the  present  form  in  which  it  has 
come  down  from  the  House  of  Bishops. 

Judge  Comstock,  of  Western  New  York  : — Divorces 
,irc  granted  in  all  the  States,  unless    it  be  in  the  State 


140 


of  South  Carolina,  for  the  cause  assigned  in  this  canon. 
But  there  is  something  else  about  that  canon,  in  refer- 
ence to  which  I  am  not  quite  sure  that  I  understand  its 
import.  I  have  no  hesitancy  n  saying  that  the  last 
part  of  (hat  canon  ought  to  be  adopted.  Its  purpose  is 
very  clear,  that  the  guilty  party  who  has  been  divorced 
is  not  to  be  married  again  by  a  clergyman  of  this  Church. 
That  is  a  principle  of  law  and  morality  which  may  be 
well  proclaimed  by  the  Church  and  in  a  canon,  instead 
of  a  resolution.  In  regard  to  the  first  part,  which  pro- 
hibits a  clergyman  from  re-uniting,  in  marriage,  per- 
sons who  have  been  once  married,  but  have  been  di- 
vorced from  one  another — that  presents  a  point  which 
this  canon  does  not  provide  for.  •  If  parties  have  been 
once  married  and  are  divorced,  and  the  injured  party 
condones  the  offence,  and  they  are  willing  to  be  united 
again,  I  think  the  canon  should  not  prohiliit  it. 

Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin: — It  seems  to  me  it  is  an  entire 
mistake  that  there  is  a  prohibition  of  re-marrying ;  for 
the  first  part  of  the  canon  says  "  who  have  been  divorced 
for  any  other  cause  than  for  adultery."  Here  is  a  party 
who  has  been  divorced  from  some  other  party  for  some 
other  cause  than  adultery.  He  or  she  cannot  be  mar- 
ried to  a  third  party.  But  if  he  or  she  has  been  di- 
vorced on  the  ground  of  adultery,  then  they  cannot  be 
married.  But  he  or  she  that  has  been  divorced  on  ac- 
count of  his  or  her  own  adultery  cannot  be  re-married. 
I  have  greater  difficulty  than  this ;  it  is  what  is  defined 
to  be  "divorce  a  vinculo  matrimonii  formally  decreed  by 
a  civil  court."  What  is  a  civil  court  ?  In  many  of  our 
States  divorces  are  granted  in  a  bundle  by  the  legisla- 
tures of  State.  Is  that  a  civil  court,  or  not  ?  Is  it 
meant  to  include  legislatures  which  may  grant  divorces, 
as  in  Indiana,  I  believe,  and  I  do  not  know  but  it  may 
be  in  all  our  States  ?  I  know  it  has  been  the  custom 
to  grant  divorces  upon  petition  made  to  the  legislatures. 
It  should  be  relieved  entirely  of  this  difficulty,  if  it  be 
the  case  in  any  of  our  States  that  the  divorce  is  granted 
upon  petition  to  the  legislature.  How  is  the  clergyman 
to  know  whether  the  divorce  was  for  adultery  or  not, 
where  the  petition  stated  several  grounds  for  a  divorce  V 
Before  this  canon  can  be  complied  with,  the  clergyman 
must  know,  by  a  legal  decision  of  the  civil  court, 
strictly  applied  to  that  precise  clause,  that  divorce  was 
decreed  on  the  ground  of  adultery.  Now,  it  seems  to 
me,  there  would  be  a  difficulty  here,  in  some  cases.  I 
think  in  some  of  our  States,  still,  these  frequent  divor- 
ces are  from  acts  of  the  legislature.  I  have  often  said, 
as  often  as  I  have  had  the  opportunity,  and  am  glad  to 
be  confirmed  in  the  conviction  that  I  was  right  in  say- 
ing it,  I  honor  the  State  of  South  Carolina,  with  all  my 
heart,  for  the  peculiar  and  glorious  distinction  of  a  di- 
vorce having  never  been  granted  in  that  State.  I  be- 
lieve it  is  a  distinction  placing  her  above  all  the  other 
States  of  this  Union.  No  man  could  be  more  earnestly 
decided  than  I  am,  that  what  is  aimed  at  in  this  canon 
is  right  and  desirable.     Our   Saviour  does  not  require  a 


divorce  for  the  cause  of  adultery,  and  it  would  be  vastly 
better,  perhaps,  for  all  parties  to  understand  that  the 
marriage  is  absolutely  indissoluble. 

Mr. : — If  I  understand  the  case  before 

the  House  now,  it  is  a  motion  to  refer  to  a  committee. 
I  am  one  of  those  sharing  the  scruples  of  the  Deputy 
from  California,  as  to  the  warrant  for  a  divorce,  even 
for  adultery.  I  desire  to  have  that  scruple  answered 
by  a  vote  by  this  Convention ;  at  the  same  time,  I  feel 
that  the  Convention  should  not  adjourn  without  taking 
some  step  to  check  this  great  evil.  I  move  to  strike 
out  the  words  "  other  than  for  adultery." 

Mr. : — I  beg  leave  to  move  the  refer- 
ence of  this  question  to  the  Committee  on  Canons,  and, 
at  the  same  time,  the  recommittal  of  their  own  canon, 
that  they  may  compare  the  two,  and  make  a  report.  No 
man  is  more  in  favor  of  the  canon  which  will  stop  this 
unholy  and  abominable  practice  of  procuring  divorces 
than  I  am. 

Mr.  Taylor,  of  Virginia : — I  will  embrace,  in  my 
motion,  not  only  the  recommitment  of  the  canons,  but 
also  the  various  amendments,  and  with  the  instructons 
that  the  Committee  report  on  Monday. 

Mr.  McCkady,  of  South  Carolina: — I  am  opposed  to 
committing,  and  am  opposed  to  a  reference  to  a  special 
committee  to  report  to  the  next  Convention.  We  can- 
not constitute  a  committee  for  the  next  Convention. 
The  question  is,  why  should  we  refer  this  matter  to  the 
next  Convention  ?  We  have  here  the  action  of  the 
Bishops.  The  question  is  now  upon  the  recommittal. 
Here  you  have  the  action  of  our  own  Committee  on  Can. 
ons,  and  you  have  the  action  of  the  House  of  Bishops. 
Suppose,  now,  that  the  report  of  our  Committee  on 
Canons  had  been  before  us  at  this  time.  We  would 
naturally  put  that  aside  to  take  up  this.  Instead  of  send- 
ing to  the  House  of  Bishops  for  their  concurrence,  we 
would  concur  in  this,  and  the  thing  would  be  settled. 
Therefore  it  is  wise  to  act  upon  this  canon,  instead  of 
recommitting,  and  bringing  in  another  canon,  which 
must,  after  adoption  by  us,  be  sent  to  the  House  of 
Bishops  for  their  concurrence.  I  will  take  the  oppor- 
tunity to  say  what  I  think  will  be  the  difference  be- 
tween a  resolution  and  a  canon.  My  colleague,  the  rev- 
erend gentleman  who  spoke  for  my  diocese,  has  suffi- 
cientl}'  expressed  it,  that  is,  a  resolution  is  merely  an 
expression  of  npinion,  ami  a  canon  is  a  law.  But  why, 
then,  did  I  prefer  a  resolution  in  the  case  of  dioceses 
who  wished  to  unite  in  council  ?  We  have  an  object, 
now,  in  making  a  law  which  no  man  can  break,  and  we 
need  a  canon.  When  you  wanted  to  permit  the  coun- 
cil, there  was  only  wanted  an  expression  of  opinion 
that  that  was  lawful.  They  would  have  stood  upon  Ijet- 
ter  ground  than  now,  for  if  there  had  been  a  resolution 
declaring  here  that  they  had  the  power,  that  would 
have  been  irreversible.  Now  they  have  taken  it  by 
canon,  and  we  can  repeal  that  whenever  we  please. 
Therefore  I  thought  it  better  for  the  dioceses  to  have  a 


141 


resolution  ;  they  could  then  only  be  reached  by  a  judi- 
cial decision ;  but  now  they  hold  the  privilege  at  the 
beck  of  this  body. 

Hon.  S.  B.  RuGGLEs : — Does  the  gentleman  think 
that  the  resolution  of  1808  is  binding  upon  us,  declaring 
these  marriages  contrary  to  the  law  of  God  ? 

Mr.  McCradt: — Yes  Sir;  I  think  so.  We  have  the 
authority  to  repeal  that ;  but  that  produced  no  govern- 
ment ;  it  was  thu  expression  of  opinion  of  that  body ; 
but  it  is  no  law  ;  and  you  cannot  charge  a  clergyman 
with  a  breach  of  the  resolution;  but  you  make  a  can- 
on and  you  can  charge  him ;  because  it  is  an  offence 
for  him  to  violate  the  canon.  That  resolution  is  a  good 
thing  to  refer  to,  to  show  that  as  far  back  as  that,  the 
same  opinion  was  entertained,  but  they  had  not  the 
courage  to  make  a  law.  But  now  we  are  stronger ; 
and  we  have  felt  the  necessity  of  a  law  on  the  subject ; 
and  we  are  prepared  to  say,  not  only  is  it  our  opinion, 
but  "we  will  put  the  law  upon  you  and  you  will  have 
to  obey  it  or  suffer."  I  have  said  nothing  upon  the 
main  question,  because  the  question  is  simply  upon  the 
reference  and  the  difference  between  a  resolution   and 


a  canon. 
Mr.— 


: — The  gentleman  from  South  Caro- 
lina says  that  we  could  at  once  act  upon  the  report  of 
the  Committee  on  Canons  from  our  own  House.  I 
would  ask  to  have  it  read  ;  if  it  is  free  from  objection, 
and  the  House  has  made  up  its  mind,  1  hope  we  shall 
proceed  to  vote  upon  it  at  once.  The  suggestion  of  the 
gentleman  from  California  is  in  reply  to  an  entirely  dif- 
ferent question,  and  may  be  brought  before  the  House 
upon  another  resolution,  and  which  should  not  embar- 
ra.s3  this  inquiry  before  us  at  this  time,  and  certainly 
should  not  put  off  this  question  after  we  have  had  these 
arguments  from  all  sides  of  the  House  The  objection  made 
by  the  learned  deputy  from  Western  New  York  was  a 
good  objection  to  the  canon  as  pioposed  by  the  House 
of  Bishops.  It  however  may  be  easily  amended  and 
brought  in  on  Monday ;  but  if  our  own  canon  is  free 
from  objection  we  would  save  time  by  passing  it  and 
sending  it  up  to  the  House  of  Bishops.  The  object  of 
the  House  is  to  save  time  in  legislating  upon  this  sub- 
ject, when  the  whole  House  has  made  up  its  mind. 

The  Rev.  Ur.  Mahan  : — [With  reference  to  the  mo- 
tion to  commit  an  inquiry  as  to  the  Scriptural  grounds 
of  divorce.]  Would  it  be  in  any  way  desirable  even  if 
lawful  and  in  conformity  with  the  customs  of  this  House 
to  commit  to  any  connnittee  a  theological  question  on 
which  the  wisest  men  in  the  Church  diifer.  It  is  an  in- 
terpretation of  the  Scripture  which  no  committee  could 
satisfactorily  settle. 

Mr.  Labagh  : — I  hope  this  subject  will  be  recommit- 
ted, or  that  it  will  be  committed  to  a  joint  committee 
of  both  Houses,  to  look  at  it  in  iU  length  and  breadth, 
in  all  its  bearing  upon  our  civil  rights,  upon  our  social 
rights  and  relations,  and  upon  our  religious  relations  and 
privileges.     This  is  a  subject  of  larger  scope  than  many 


imagine.  The  ground  proposed  to  be  taken  by  the 
Church  is  that  no  divorce  can  be  lawful  except  upon 
the  ground  of  adultery.  The  State  has  decided  that 
there  are  several  grounds  of  divorce  ;  one  is  incom])e- 
tency ;  another  is  abandonment;  and  I  hold  that  ther 
Scriptures  do  teach  that  there  are  more  grounds  of  di- 
vorce than  simply  adultery.  The  Scotch  Church  inter- 
pret this  passage  in  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthi- 
ans as  justifying  divorce  on  the  ground  of  abandonment 
— it  says,  "But  and  if  she  depart,  let  her  remain  un- 
married, or  be  reconciled  to  her  husband  ;  and  let  not 
the  husband  put  away  his  wife.  But  to  the  rest  speak 
I,  not  the  Lord :  If  any  brother  hath  a  wife  that  believ- 
eth  not,  and  she  be  pleased  to  dwell  with  him,  let  him 
not  put  her  away.  And  the  woman  which  hath  a  hus- 
l)and  that  believeth  not,  and  if  he  be  pleased  to  dwell 
with  her,  let  her  not  leave  him.  For  the  unbelieving 
husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wife  and  the  unbelieving 
wife  is  sanctified  by  the  husband :  else  were  your  chil- 
dren unclean ;  but  now  are  they  holy.  But  if  the  un- 
believing depart,  let  him  depart.  A  brother  or  sister  is 
not  under  bondage  in  such  cases;"  but  the  Scotch 
Church  interprets  that  "  in  bonds "  to  be  the  law  of 
marriage.  Now  what  is  marriage  ?  Both  in  the  civil 
and  religious  aspect  it  is  a  contract.  We  derive  our 
law  of  marriage  from  the  State  as  well  as  from  the  Holy 
Scripture.  The  State  regards  the  marriage  as  a  con- 
tract, and  regards  the  clergyman  officiating  as  a  civil 
officer  for  the  time  being  to  perfect  a  contract  entered 
into  between  two  parties ;  and  the  State  reseives  to  it- 
self always  the  right  to  supervise  that  contract;  it 
places  that  upon  the  same  basis  as  all  contracts.  If  the 
contract  is  violated  by  one  party  the  State  has  a  right 
to  decide  whether  the  other  party  is  free.  The  Church 
also  puts  it  upon  the  ground  of  a  contract.  The  clergy- 
man says,  will  you  do  so  and  so,  or  will  you  profliise  so 
and  so  to  each  party.  Here  are  stipulations,  agreements, 
entered  into. 

Does  the  violation  of  these  agreements  work  any  for- 
feiture except  in  one  case?  There  are  four  things  promised, 
four  things  which  the  clergyman  requires  each  party  to 
agree  to — love  and  affection,  duty  and  protection,  adher- 
ence to  each  other,  support  on  the  part  of  the  husband  to 
the  wife,  obedience  on  thepartof  the  wife  to  the  husband. 
Another  is  fidelity  to  the  marital  relation.  Now  you 
say  the  violation  of  only  one  of  these  promises  is  re- 
quired to  produce  divorce ;  there  can  be  no  justification 
of  divorce  if  the  other  three  are  violated — if  a  man 
abandons  his  wife,  refuses  to  give  her  support,  or  treats 
her  unkindly,  the  law  interposes,  and  says,  the  contract 
is  violated  and  the  other  party  is  not  held  by  it.  Here 
are  serious  difliculties  that  we  perhaps  may  incur  in  the 
passage  of  a  canon  of  this  general  kind.  The  clergyman 
as  a  civil  officer  has  his  rights  in  the  Cdminunity.  I'arties 
present  themselves  before  him  who  have  been  divorced 
on  the  ground  of  abandoiunent,  and  the  law  has  super- 
vised the  whole  subject  and  says  that  the   violatioji    of 


142 


the  contract  on  the  part  of  the  one  has  wrought  forfeiture 
and  declares  the  other  party  free  and  the  clergyman 
has  a  right  to  marry  him  or  her  to  another  person.  Are 
you  going  to  take  away  the  rights  of  a  clergyman  in 
this  case  ?  Has  the  Church  a  right  to  say  when  the  word 
of  God  seems  to  justify  divorce  on  other  grounds  than 
that  of  adultery,  when  the  Church  makes  several  stipu- 
lations, and  all  the  stipulations  are  violated  but  one — 
has  the  Church  a  right  to  say  that  the  divorce  is  not 
right  when  the  State  has  supervised  the  matter  and 
that  one  party  is  free.  What  was  the  condition  of  things 
under  the  Law  ?  I  supjiose  St.  Paul  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Corinthians  partly  alludes  to  that.  Under  the  Law, 
if  a  woman  said  to  her  husband,  come  let  us  go  and 
serve  other  gods,  he  should  not  spare  her  and  she  should 
be  stoned  to  death.  Here  is  an  enticement  to  forsake 
religion  presented  as  a  ground  of  divorce. 

Mr.  Johnson,  of  Connecticut : — I  rise  simply  for  the 
purpose  of  opposing  any  delay  in  the  decision  of  this 
question.  I  am  here  under  the  instruction  of  my  dio- 
cese to  press  upon  this  Convention  action  upon  the  sub- 
ject before  us.  My  State  is  one  of  those  guilty  of  that 
which  gentlemen  charge  against  us.  This  matter  of  di- 
vorce is  sapping  the  very  foundations  of  society.  We 
have  in  our  State  no  less  than  ten  per  cent,  of  divorces 
in  proportion  to  marriages.  The  effect  of  our  divorce 
laws  are  perfectly  horrible.  The  matter  was  brought 
especially  to  the  attention  of  the  Bishop  of  Connecticut 
by  an  incident  under  his  own  eye.  There  was  a  man 
who  had  raised  a  family  of  daughters.  He  was  divorced 
in  one  of  the  W  estern  States,  and  came  home  and  was 
soon  re-married  under  the  laws  of  the  State,  not  how- 
ever by  a  clergyman  of  the  Episcopal  Church.  A  second 
family  of  daughters  were  the  result  of  that  marriage. 
These  daughters  being  well  rrown,  the  father  again  dis- 
appeared occasionally  from  his  place  of  business,  and 
presently  it  was  announced  to  his  second  wife  that  he 
was  divorced  in  one  of  the  Western  States.  The  in- 
ducement in  the  last  case,  as  in  nine  cases  out  of  ten 
was  the  changing  of  the  partner.  Put  a  stop  to  re- 
marriages and  you  put  a  stop  to  divorces.  The  cause 
of  the  application  tor  the  second  divorce,  was  that  a 
lady,  to  whom  this  gentleman  had  made  overtures  in 
early  life,  had  become  a  wealthy  widow.  She  was  fool- 
ish enough  to  listen  to  his  addresses  even  while  he  was 
bound  by  the  second  marriage,  so  far  as  there  can  be 
any  force  in  a  marriage  founded  upon  fraudulent  di- 
vorces obtained  without  notice,  and  entirely  deceptive. 
But  still,  married  as  he  was,  the  rich  widow  consented. 
The  second  divorce  was  obtained ;  hut,  when  it  came  to 
the  knowledge  of  the  friends  of  the  second  wife,  she  con- 
sulted lier  friends,  and  the  legal  opinion  was  at  once 
given  that  the  divorce  was  a  fraud.  The  notice  is  given 
to  the  new  lady-love  that  she  could  marry  if  she  pleased, 
but  her  husband  would  soon  be  put  in  the  State-prison 
for  bigamy.  Now  in  this  state  of  things  we  wish  to  pre" 
pare  public  sentiment ;  and  we  are  sent  to  get  from  this 


Convention  the  announcement  of  a  sound  doctrine  of 
marriage  and  divorce,  that  we  may  bring  the  power  of 
the  Church,  and  the  public  sentiment  generally,  to  bear 
upon  our  Legislature.  I  trust  that  this  Convention  will 
pardon  me  when  we  say  that  we  have  a  deal  of  pride  in 
the  movement  that  is  now  taking  place  in  Connecticut 
in  favor  of  better  legislation  upon  this  subject.  The 
lead  comes  from  Yale  College,  from  the  Congregation- 
alists  of  Connecticut,  from  the  Puritan  element  whose 
variation  from  sound  principle  and  sound  practices  has 
from  stage  to  stage  led  to  this  awful  state  of  things, 
and  which  is  now  recoiling  from  the  evil  it  has  pro- 
duced. The  leader  of  the  movement  is  Prof.  Loomis  of 
Yale  College,  who  started  it  by  an  article  in  the  New- 
Englander.  which  has  been  followed  up  by  other  articles, 
the  last  one  appearing  in  the  New-Englander  since  we 
have  assembled,  from  the  President  of  Yale  College ;  and 
the  President  of  Yale  College  has  brought  this  thing  be- 
fore the  Legislature  ;  and  he  has  been  examined  before 
a  committee.  They  need  our  assistance ;  and  by  the 
combined  power  of  Congregational  unity,  and  the  Epis- 
copalian unity,  an  influence  can  be  brought  to  bear  upon 
that  Legislature  which  will  at  once  revise  the  law.  I 
urge  this  Conven*ion  to  act  upon  this  thing  promptly. 
We  have  several  propositions  here.  We  do  not  need  here 
any  disquisition  upon  the  law  or  the  religion  of  the  di- 
vorce and  marriage.  We  want  no  dissertation  to  be 
produced  for  the  ne.xt  Convention  ;  we  want  immediate 
action.  The  canon  we  have  from  the  House  of  Bishops 
covers  the  question  entirely  for  all  practical  purposes ; 
so  does  the  one  reported  by  the  committee.  All  we 
require  is  the  sentence  of  condemnation  of  re-marriages 
after  divorces  for  causes  less  than  adultery.  1  am  wil- 
ling to  go  further  than  that.  I  have  amendments  that 
I  could  propose,  but  cui  bono?  You  have  the  substan- 
tial thing  in  denouncing  re-marriages  after  divorces.  1 
do  not  care  whether  it  is  in  the  canon  whether  the  par- 
ties be  alive,  for  if  the  party  be  dead  there  is  no  breach 
of  the  moral  law.  There  is  no  difference  in  this  Con- 
vention upon  principle.  I  have  had  some  experience 
in  judging  of  the  opinion  of  the  Convention  in  advance 
of  the  vote ;  and  I  should  say  that  this  Convention  is 
ready  for  immediate  action  upon  the  main  question  that 
there  should  be  no  marriage  after  divorce. 

Hon.  S.  B.  RuGGLES: — I  beg  to  state  that  I  know  of 
one  fact  which  I  think  will  lead  us  to  immediate  action. 
A  man,  if  I  may  so  call  him,  married  a  woman  who  be- 
came epileptic.  He  applied  to  the  court  and  was  di- 
vorced for  that  reason.  He  was  married  the  second 
time  and  the  poor  epileptic  assisted  at  the  marriage  as 
brides  maid.  He  was  married  by  a  clergyman  of  this 
Church. 

Mr. said  that  that  man  and  his  two  wives 

as  communicants  have  forced  this  on  a  clergyman  of  the 
Church  for  want  of  such  a  canon  as  this  House  is  de- 
termined to  put  through.  I  know  the  case  referred  to 
in  all  its  unutterable  abomination. 


143 


Rev.  Mr.  Martin  : — In  the  office  of  the  court  near 
where  I  live  there  were  thirty  divorce  cases  on  the 
docket.  I  was  informed  by  the  clerk  of  the  county 
court  that  he  had  frequently  seen  this  to  be  the  case, 
that  after  the  judge  on  the  bench  had  declared  the  de- 
cree of  divorce,  the  woman  would  rise  up  and  would  be 
followed  by  a  man ;  she  would  go  down  stairs,  procure 
a  license,  and  in  twenty  minutes  be  married  to  that  man. 
In  one  case  he  told  me  of,  it  had  been  done  twice  by  the 
same  woman.  I  appeal  to  this  House  to  give  to  clergy 
there,  something  upon  which  they  can  depend.  We  are 
anxious  for  some  protection.  There  are  but  thirty  ol 
us  in  that  large  diocese  and  we  are  constrained  by  the 
fear  of  public  opinion  in  many  respects  to  keep  silence 
I  have  never  married  a  divorced  person,  and  I  will  not 
do  it ;  but  there  are  some  perhaps  who  have  not  so 
much  moral  courage,  who  want  this  canon  to  fall  back 


; — We  are  all  desirous  of  passing  the 


upon. 

Mr. 

canon,  but  I  propose  to  move  to  lay  the  whole  matter, 
reported  from  the  House  of  Bishops  on  the  table ;  be- 
cause it  permits  divorces  by  the  legislatures  of  the  State 
o  vinculo  malrimonu  for  adultery  and  excludes  them 
from  the  operation  of  the  canon.  Tliat  is  a  single  ob- 
jection and  there  are  three  or  four  other  objections  as 
presented  by  the  bishops. 

I  move  to  lay  that  upon  the  table  with  all  the  amend- 
ments that  we  may  take  up  the  report  from  the  commit- 
tee which  is  unexceptionable  e.\cept  on  one  point  and 
that  is  the  great  exception  which  they  will  remedy  by  a 
canon  on  Monday.  It  says  that  persons  who  have  been 
divorced  for  adultery  may  marry,  even  the  guilty  par- 
ties. There  is  no  prohibition  in  the  report  of  our  Com- 
mittee on  Canons  as  to  marrying  parties  who  have  been 
guilty  of  adultery. 

On  motion  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Haight,  the  message  from 
the  House  of  Bishops,  on  the  subject  of  the  divorce,  and 
the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Canons  were  referred 
with  all  the  amendments  to  the  Committee  on  Canons  to 
consider  and  report  on  Monday  morning. 

Mr.  Henrv  Meigs,  of  New  Jersey — offered  the  fol- 
lowing resolution,  which  was  adopted: 

Resolved,  That  certain  documents  placed  in  the  hands 
of  Rev.  Dr.  Abcrcrombie  of  New  Jersey,  by  the  heirs  of 
late  Rev.  Dr.  H.  M.  Mason,  typographical  corrector  of  the 
standard  Bible,  be  referred  to  the  joint  committee  to  ex- 
amine the  proof-sheets  of  the  Standard  Bible. 

On  motion  of  Rev.  Dr.  Haight,  the  house  then  pro- 
ceeded to  the  consideration  of  the  proposed  canon  in 
reference  to  the  offences  of  ministers. 

Hon.  S.  B.  RuGGLEs : — Does  the  catalogue  of  offen- 
ces specify  all  the  offences  for  wliich  a  clergyman  may 
be  tried?  [Rev.  Dr.  Haight: — Yes,  sir.J  Does  tlie 
catalogue  include  the  offence  (held  to  be  an  offence  in 
England)  of  the  marriage  of  a  brother's  wife  ? 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight  : — Unless  it  is  a  violation  of  a  canon 
or  constitution,  no.     There  is  nothing  on  that  subject 


in  the  present  canon.  The  simple  objeot  of  this 
amendment  is  to  make  this  canon  in  regard  to  presby- 
ters harmonize  with  that  in  the  trial  of  bishops. 

Rev.  Mr.  Marple. — I  desire  to  say  a  few  words  in 
regard  to  this  proposed  amendment  of  the  canon.  On 
first  listening  to  the  reading  of  it,  it  seemed  to  me  the 
fairest  thing  in  the  world  that  a  priest  should  be  made 
responsible  for  the  various  offences  that  a  bishop  is  made 
responsible  for;  and  yet,  as  1  came  to  think  about  the 
matter  a  little  further,  I  completely  changed  my  mind, 
and  thought  that  this  was  one  of  the  most  oppressive 
canons  that  I  ever  heard  read.  There  is  protection  for 
the  bishop,  while  there  is  no  protection  for  the  priest. 
We  do  prescribe  certain  modes  in  the  case  of  the  trial  of 
a  bishop,  and  we  protect  that  bishop,  especially  when  he 
is  charged  with  holding  and  teaching  any  doctrine  con- 
trary to  the  doctrines  entertained  by  this  Church. 
What  is  required  in  the  case  of  a  bishop?  Nothing  less 
than  that  the  presentation  against  him,  in  case  of  a  false 
doctrine,  shall  be  made  by  a  brother  bishop;  that  the 
court  shall  consist  of  the  entire  House  of  Bishops;  that 
three-fourths  are  absolutely  requisite  for  a  quorum,  and 
that  a  vote  of  two-thirds  of  the  whole  number  entitled 
to  seats  in  the  House  of  Bishops  must  be  requisite  for 
conviction.  I  say  that  the  bishop  is  protected,  and  that 
theie  is  scarcely  any  protection  in  the  case  of  the  priest. 
He  is  not  required  to  be  tried  by  the  whole  of  the  (iriests 
of  his  diocese,  but  by  a  court  constituted  according  to 
the  provisions  in  every  diocese.  I  say  that  the  priest 
may  be  oppressed.  I  believe  the  introduction  and  adop- 
tion of  this  canon  would  be  one  of  the  best  modes  of  in- 
troducing trouble,  grievous  trouble,  and  divisions  into 
our  Church.  We  do  not  need  to  make  ecclesiastical 
trials  as  easy  as  possible;  we  do  not  wish  to  multiply  them 
in  all  parts  of  our  land.  I  regard  this  canon  as  most  se- 
rious in  its  provisions.  I  have  been  glad  to  follow  the 
Committee  on  Canons  in  almost  all  their  recommenda- 
tions, and  have  felt  that  they  were  most  moderate  and 
wise  in  their  suggestions.  I  cannot  but  think  that  in  this 
case  they  have  made  a  most  serious  mistake.  I  understand 
that  it  does  introduce  something  or  other  that  is  new  for 
which  a  clergyman  may  be  tried,  suspended,  and  de- 
graded. They  are  the  same  things  ibr  which  a  bishop 
may  be  tried,  suspended,  and  degraded ;  but  the  bishop 
is  under  such  guards  as  are  not  at  all  found  in  the  case 
of  a  presbyter.  I  would  like  to  ask  the  gentleman 
whether  1  am  correct. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight. — I  suppose  the  section  to  which 
my  friend  from  Pennsylvania  alludes  is  the  second  of 
the  specified  acts.  I  supposed  all  along  that  the  clergy- 
men of  this  Church  could  not  be  allowed  to  go  on  and 
teach  publicly  and  privately  doctrines  opposed  to  the 
doctrines  of  this  Church,  and  yet  not  be  brought  to  trial. 
I  had  no  idea  that  our  discipline  was  so  loose  as  that. 

Rev.  Mr.  Maki-le. — I  only  oppose  the  introduction  of 
undue  power — the  introduction  of  means  whereby  any 
one  can  be  oppressed. 


144 


Rev.  Dr.  Haight. — If  I  understand  the  views  of  the 
reverend  brother,  they  are  opposed  to  the  use  of  this 
language  embraced  in  Specification  No.  2,  that  is,  that 
a  clergyman  may  be  tried  for  holding  and  teaching  any 
doctrine  contrary  to  that  held  by  the  Protestant  Episco- 
pal Church  in  the  United  States.  I  suppose  that,  in 
most  of  our  dioceses,  when  a  clergyman  is  tried  he  is 
tried  by  his  peers,  just  as  the  bishop  is  tried  by  his  peers. 
In  the  diocese  to  which  I  have  the  honor  to  belong  the 
presbyter  is  tried  by  five  of  his  peers  chosen  by  himself. 
1  suppose  that  will  give  a  man  the  fairest  possible  chance' 
There  is  only  one  difficulty  in  the  way,  which  I  suppose 
every  clergyman  in  the  Church  feels  most  deeply — that 
we  have  no  court  of  appeals — and  therefore  a  man  has 
but  one  chance.  But  that  is  the  law,  and  we  must  abide 
by  it.  I  see  no  harm  in  saying  that  the  Church  holds  a 
man  bound  to  teach  the  doctrines  of  the  Church,  and 
that  if  he  does  not  he  shall  be  brought  to  trial  and  pun- 
ished. 1  would  like  to  point  out  to  my  brother  from 
Pennsylvania  that  by  the  present  canon  a  clergyman  is 
liable  to  be  tried  for  holding  and  teaching  any  doctrine 
contrary  to  the  doctrines  held  by  the  Church.  In  the 
present  case  clergymen  may  be  tried  for  heresy.  What 
is  the  standard  ibr  heresy  ?  That  is  one  of  the  most  dif- 
ficult subjects  in  the  world  to  speak  of.  Some  divines 
refer  you  to  one  standard  and  some  to  others;  some  talk 
about  four  General  Councils,  some  about  six,  and  some 
about  none  at  all.  That  is  stricken  out,  and  here  you 
have  these  definite  statements  of  things  for  which  a  pres- 
byter may  be  tried. 

Mr.  Marple  : — That  is  why  I  object ;  heresy  is  a 
much  stronger  word.  There  are  many  people  who  do 
not  cherish  the  views  I  entertain  ;  and  if  I  were  in  cer- 
tain dioceses  they  would  say  my  doctrines  were  contrary 
to  those  of  the  Church.  I  may  have  the  view  of  Bishop 
Hobart  that  baptismal  regeneration  is  an  outward  change 
or  a  change  of  relations.  There  are  many  dioceses  where 
that  would  be  regarded  as  contrary  to  the  doctrines  of 
the  Church. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight  : — I  thought  that  was  held  every- 
where. 

Hon.  S.  B.  RuGGLES : — Heresy  has  been  defined  by 
statute  as  the  publicly  teaching  of  doctrines  contrary  to 
the  teachings  of  the  Holy  Church.  I  think  the  word 
"public"  is  in  the  statute.  Therefore,  this  canon  omits  that 
word  "public  teaching."  The  protection  of  a  clergyman 
is  that  lor  private  acts  of  teaching  he  cannot  be  punished, 
while  for  public  acts  he  may. 

A  Deputy  : — What  is  the  difficulty  of  the  present 
canon  ? 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight  :— Its  want  of  definiteness  and  ex- 
plicitness,  and  its  use  of  certain  vague  terms.  There 
are  repetitions  in  the  canon  which  are  entirely  unneces 
sary,  and  an  omi.ssion  of  the  violation  of  ordination  vow. 
"Disorderly  conduct ;"  that  is  a  very  vague  phrase. 
Some  look  at  it  as  relating  to  the  Church  and  others 
look  at   it  as    relating   to  personal   conduct.     If   is   a 


vague  and  indefinite  term.  Then  it  goes  on  to  say'  for 
drunkenness,  for  profane  swearing,  etc.,  as  though  these 
were  not  embraced  by  "disorderly  conduct." 

Mr. : — The  terms  of  this  canon  seem  not  to  be 

remarkably  lucid.  I  do  submit  we  ought  to  have  some- 
thing exceedingly  clear  and  definite.  The  Church  ought 
to  guard  with  peculiar  tenderness  and  care  the  reputa- 
tion of  clergymen.  Directing  the  canons  of  the  Church 
against  the  reputation  of  clergymen,  is  a  serious  thing 
and  while  I  am  thoroughly  prepared  to  stand  up  under 
the  canon  1  would  like  to  know  when  the  canons  are 
being  cast  that  they  are  wisely  cast. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight  : — When  we  refer  to  doctiines  of 
the  Church  we  refer  to  something  known  ;  not  to  39 
articles  only  but  also,  and  primarily,  to  the  liturgy,  and 
offices.  The  objection  my  brother  makes  against  the 
language  of  the  proposed  amendment  lies  much  more 
strongly  against  the  present  canon,  which  renders  him 
Uable  to  be  tried  for  inculcating  heretical  doctrine. 

Mr.  J.  J.  Pringle  Smith,  of  South  Carolina  : — If  I 
understand  the  report  of  flie  Committee  on  Canons,  it 
does  not  touch  or  change  the  mode  of  trial  or  any  pro- 
ceedings under  a  presentment,  when  it  comes  to  trial ; 
it  is  merely  a  question  of  choice  between  two  things  al- 
ready in  print.  Canon  9,  Title  2d,  mentions  the  otTences 
for  which  a  minister  may  be  tried.  It  is  merely  a  choice 
of  phraseology.  I  think  the  Convention  is  ready  to  vote 
at  once.  1  press  upon  the  House  the  immediate  choice 
between  the  phraseology  of  two  canons.  The  amend- 
ment is  nothing  more  than  a  mere  enumeration  of  offen- 
ces for  which  a  presbyter  may  be  tried  ;  and  the  Com- 
mittee on  Canons  thought  it  advisable  to  conform  that 
phraseology  to  the  enumeration  of  offences  for  which  a 
Bishop  may  be  tried. 

A  motion  to  print  the  proposed  amendment   was  lost. 
The  question  then  recurred  upon  the  adoption  of  the 
resolution  of  the  committee. 

Mr.  S.  B.  Churchill,  of  Kentucky:— In  this  case, 
the  Committee  on  Canons  have  not  shown  to  my  mind 
any  necessity  for  changing  the  old  law.  The  last  gentle- 
man said  it  was  merely  a  change  in  phraseology.  I  think 
the  amendment  may  lead  to  some  trouble ;  and  as  the 
old  canon  has  operated  well,  and  as  no  complaints  have 
ever  been  made  of  it,  I  think  we  should  hold  to  the 
language  as  we  have  it  now.  I  therefore  move  to  lay 
the  proposed  canon  upon  the  table. 

The  motion  to  lay  it  upon  the  table  was  agreed  to. 
The  question  then  recurred  upon  the  passage  of  the 
canon. 

Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin  : — Here  is  the  same  enumeration 
of  offences  in  the  case  of  a  clergyman,  or  priest,  or  dea- 
con as  in  the  case  of  a  Bishop.  The  mode  of  trial  is  dif- 
ferent. That  has  some  bearing  upon  the  question.  If 
the  Bishop  is  tried  for  holding  or  teaching  any  thing 
contrary  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  he  is  tried  by  his  peers,  by  the  whole  House 
of  Bishops,  and  their   decision  must  be  understood  to  be 


145 


what  is  the  doi^trine  of  the  (Uiureh.  But  when  a 
jjriest  is  presented  for  a  violation  of  that  second  Iiead 
that  is,  presented  for  hohiing  or  teaching  jirivately  as 
well  as  publicly,  anything  contrary  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  he  is  tried  by  a  court 
in  his  own  diocese.  We  have  no  decision  of  the  Church 
as  to  what  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Protestant  Ejjiseopal 
Church.  That  same  clergyman  being  taught  by  that 
court  what  is  the  doctrine,  may  go  into  anotlier  diocese 
and  teach  and  hold  precisely  that  doctrine ;  and  for 
holding  and  teaching  that,  he  may  in  that  other  diocese 
be  tried  by  a  court  of  five  Presbyters  and  be  found 
guilty.  This  opens  the  way  to  have  all  sorts  of  adjudi- 
cated determinations  upon  the  doctrines  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States.  We  are  told — 
"(),  the  court  of  appeals  will  remedy  all  this."  1  am  not 
in  favor  of  bringing  in  a  court  of  appeals  by  a  side- 
wind. I  am  not  so  in  favor  of  altering  our  canons  that  we 
must  have  a  court  of  appeals.  As  to  the  heretical  doctrine, 
it  is  a  very  dilterent  thing.  A  court  of  five  Presbyters 
could  hardly  undertake  to  declare  that  to  be  heretical, 
the  contrary  to  which  would  be  declared  heretical  in 
another  diocese.  They  might  determine  that  it  was 
contrary  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Church.  I  think  "  her- 
etical" goes  deeper.  I  do  not  think  every  man  a 
heretic  who  holds  and  teaches  any  little  thing  contra- 
ry to  the  doctrines  of  this  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 
But  I  suppose  the  thing  is  settled.  I  only  want  to  .show 
more  fully  what  my  colleague  has  mentioned  in  bring- 
ing up  this  question.  Here  we  may  have  various  courts 
and  various  decisions. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mason  : — When  the  canon  a,s  it  now  exists, 
was  up,  it  was  objected  to  on  the  ground  of  introducing 
the  expression  "  heretical  teaching,"  for  the  reason  that 
we  are  not  able  to  determine  what  heretical  doctrine  is. 
Sujipose  a  clergyman  preaches  a  doctrine  which  is  con- 
trary to  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement,  are  you  going 
to  call  that  "  heretical  doctrine"  or  not  ?  It  is  a  serious 
aberration  from  our  Church  doctrine  ;  but  how  are  you 
going  to  determine  it  is  heretical  ?  By  the  creeds  of  the 
Church — the  Nicene  Creed  or  the  Apostles'  Creed  ?  It 
can  only  be  done  by  interpretation;  and  I  see  no  possi- 
ble way  in  which  to  determine  what  is  heretical,  un- 
less you  go  back  to  the  first  four  or  the  first  six  Gene- 
ral Councils ;  and  if  you  do  that,  you  might  determine  it. 
But  here  a  clergyman  may  preach  against  the  atone- 
ment. I  do  not  see  how  we  can  make  him  out  as  preach- 
ing heretical  doctrine.  I  mean  by  what  process  shall  we 
point  it  out,  so  that  you  can  call  it  heresy.  There  are 
various  modes  in  which  that  doctrine  of  the  atonement 
may  be  stated  ;  either  of  which  might  be  adopted,  and  you 
might  not  be  able  to  show  that  it  was  heretical.  Where- 
as if  you  say  that  if  he  preaches  contrary  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  Church,  you  decide  that  matter  at  once.  He  is  to 
be  tried  by  the  Articles,  the  Creed  and  the  Liturgy — 
the  doctrines  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.     And 


19 


that  is  the  only  way  by  which  I  can  see  that  he  can 
possibly  be  tried. 

With  regard  to  the  trial  of  a  clergyman,  I  do  not  see 
that  this  canon  makes  any  alterations.  Therelbre,  what- 
ever has  been  said  against  the  manner  in  which  a  clergy- 
man is  to  be  tried,  is  not  against  the  canon  as  reported, 
but  it  is  against  the  old  cauon.  xVlter  that  if  you  please 
in  that  respect,  and  that  is  another  matter.  Until  we 
can  determine  how  wc  are  to  fasten  upon  what  is  heretic- 
al doctrine,  we  must  necessarily  accept  this  alteration  in 
the  canon. 

The  question  being  then  upon  the  canon,  it  was 
adopted. 

The  President  announced  the  committee  on  the  support 
of  the  clergy,  consisting  of  one  from  eacli  diocese. 

The  House  then  adjourned  to  Monday  morning  at 
half-past  nine. 

SEVENTEENTH  DAY'S  PKOCEBDINGS. 

Monday,  Oct.  36, 1868. 

Morning  Prayer  was  said  by  Rev.  Dr.  Peterkin  of 
Virginia,  and  Rev.  Dr.  Isaac  G.  Hubbard,  of  New 
Hampshire.  The  Benediction  was  prouoimced  by 
Bishop  Talbot,  of  Indiana. 

The  journal  of  yesterday's  proceedings  was  read  and 
approved. 

On  motion  of  Rev.  Dr.  Beahdslet,  message  No.  34, 
fi'oin  the  House  of  Bishops,  was  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Canons. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  C.  B.  Fabnsworth,  of  Rhode  Is- 
land, there  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Canons  a 
resolution  instructing  that  Committee  to  consider  and 
report  whether  it  is  not  for  the  interest  of  this  Church 
that  parish  records  should  be  annuallj'  made  up,  and 
the  number  returned  to  the  Diocesan  Convention,  of 
all  persons  baptized  in  this  Church,  or  of  persons  in 
communion  with  this  Church  but  who  have  not  been 
confirmed,  and  also  of  all  confirmed  members  of  the 
Church  who  reside  within  the  parish  limits. 

On  motion  of  Rev.  Mr.  Claiike,  of  Georgia,  there  was 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  Canons,  instructions  to 
consider  and  report  to  this  Convention  on  the  subject 
of  striking  out  the  words  "  clerical  and  lay"  from  the 
title  of  this  House  so  that  it  shall  be  known  hereafter 
as  the  House  of  Deputies.  He  said  :  1  find  in  article 
III  that  when  the  House  is  referred  to  it  is  referred  to 
simply  as  the  House  of  Deputies.  It  seems  to  me  un- 
necessary that  the  words  "  clerical  and  lay"  should  be 
repeated  over  and  over  again  to  describe  this  House 
when  there  is  but  one  House  of  Deputies. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Welsh  there  was  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Canons  instruction  to  consider  and  re- 
port up<m  the  propriety  of  making  a  canon  rendering 
it  obligatory  upon  all  new  Dioceses  to  form  their 
standing  committees  of  an  equal  number  of  clergymen 
and  lay  members. 

There  were  received  from  the  House  of  Bishops 
messages,  thirty-three  to  thirty-sis,  inclusive. 


146 


On  motion  of  Rev.  Dr.  Stubbs,  these  messages  were 
lelerrecl  to  the  Committee  on  Canons. 

On  motion  of  Hon.  S.  B.  Rdggles,  his  resolution  of 
yesterday  in  regard  to  the  number  of  journals  to  be 
printed  was  reconsidered  ;  and  the  resolution  by  Mr. 
Cornwall,  of  Kentucky,  authorizing  the  Secretary  of 
the  House  to  have  printed  an  adequate  number  was 
adopted. 

Message  No.  37  from  the  House  of  Bishops  transmit- 
ted the  followius  resohitiim  : 

Rt^mhrd,  That  the  memorial  of  the  Oneida  Indians 
presented  to  this  House  by  the  Bishop  of  Wisconsin, 
together  with  their  draft  o"f  the  proposed  letter  to  the 
Secretary  of  the  Interior,  be  transmitted  to  the  House 
of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  with  the  request  of  this 
House  for  their  joint  action  in  the  premises. 

The  Petition  and  Memorial  of  the  Oneidas  and  the 
proposed  letter  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  were 
read  by  the  Secretary. 

Judge  Otis,  of  Illinois,  moved  that  the  proposed  let- 
ter to  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  be  signed  by  the 
President  and  Secretary  on  behalf  of  this  House. 

There  were  received  message  No.  38  from  the  House 
of  Bishops  relating  to  the  subject  of  evangelization  ; 
message  No.  39  with  reference  to  continuing 
the  joint  committee  on  the  republication  of 
the  early  journals;  message  No.  40  signifying 
non-concurrence  in  the  canon  proposed  by  the  House 
of  Deputies  concerning  Assistant  Bishops ;  message  No. 
41  signifying  concurrence  in  the  action  of  this  House  in 
relation  to  assessment  for  contingent  expenses  of  the 
General  Convention  ;  message  No.  43  signifying  concur- 
rence with  the  second  resolution  transmitted  in  mes- 
sage No.  20  with  an  amendment  by  substituting  "  regu- 
lated" for  the  words  "  provided  for,"  which  amendment 
was  concurred  in  by  the  House. 

Mr.  W.  Welsh,  of  Pennsylvania,  moved  to  refer  the 
message  of  the  House  of  Bishops  with  reference  to  the 
Oneida  Indians  to  a  special  committee,  consisting  of 
the  delegates  from  Wisconsin. 

Hon.  S.  B.  RuGGLES — I  have  no  objection  to  this  mo- 
tion, but  the  question  with  me  is  whether  this  Conven- 
tion shall  undertake  to  interfere  with  the  policy  of  the 
general  government. 

Mr.  Welsh — I  moved  its  reference  to  the  delegates 
from  Wisconsin  because  I  think  it  would  be  a  bad  pre- 
cedent if  we  were  to  sign  things  upon  the  recommenda- 
tion of  otiiers.  If  we  should  do  so,  we  would  sinii  to 
the  level  of  mere  politicians,  who  even  sign  things  that 
they  know  are  wrong  and  untruthful. 

Judge  Otis — These  Indians  have  been  under  the  ju- 
risdiction of  Bishop  Kemper  for  thirty  years  ;  he  has 
signed  tlie  Memorial. 

Rev.  Dr.  Stubbs  thought  that  it  was  not  decoi-ous  to 
refer  a  message  from  the  House  of  Bishops  to  the  Dep- 
uties from  any  Slate. 

The  President  suggested  that  the  motion  is  to  refer 
to  the  Deputies  as  a  special  committee. 

Rev.  Dr.  DeKoven — In  the  Diocese  of  Wisconsin 
there  is  a  settlement  of  Oneida  Indians  that  have  been 
uuder  the  charge  of  the  Church.  I  feel  certain  that 
they  have  been  greatly  oppressed  and  troubled  by  cer- 


tain things  which  have  tended  to  take  away  their 
lands.  They  have  not  been  fairly  treated.  These  In- 
dians have  been  presided  over  by  the  Bishop  of  Wis- 
consin, who  knows  all  the  facts  and  particulars.  I 
simply  say  that  to  refer  this  matter  to  any  delegation 
whatever  is  useless.  It  has  the  fullest  indorsement  of  all 
the  delegation.  The  Indians  are  earnest  and  faithfvd 
people.  I  have  heard  the  Bishop  tell  of  the  visitations 
he  has  made  to  the  Indians  and  of  .their  earnestness 
and  faithfulness  in  the  cause  of  the  Church. 

Mr.  Welsh — Has  the  gentleman  examined  those 
papers  ? 

Rev.  Dr.  DeKoven — Is  it  necessary  that  I  should  add 
my  approval  to  the  words  and  e.xhortations  of  the  old- 
est Bishop  in  this  Church  ?  If  Bishop  Kemper  sends 
down  to  this  House  such  a  thing,  I  don't  believe  my 
words  will  add  anj'thiug  at  all  in  the  opinion  of  this 
House. 

Judge  Battle — It  is  said  that  hard  cases  are  the 
quicksands  of  the  law,  and  they  may  be  the  quicksands 
of  this  Convention.  I  recollect  that  in  1859  a  memori- 
al was  made  memorializing  the  King  of  Spam.  It  was 
rejected  upon  the  ground  that  this  Convention  had 
nothing  to  do  with  any  political  question.  If  we  s 
out  to  redress  all  the  grievances  of  Indians,  blacks, 
and  of  all  oppressed  people,  we  shall  acquire  the  char 
acter  of  the  celebrated  Don  Quixote,  setting  out  to  re- 
dress everybody's  injuries.  We  should  pause  before 
we  seta  dangerous  precedent.  If  we  apply  to  the  Gov- 
ernment for  this  purpose,  on  some  other  occasion  we 
shall  go  furthei'.  Let  us  confine  ourselves  to  the  busi- 
ness of  the  Church,  to  its  extension  ;  that  will  be  enough 
for  the  action  of  this  Convention.  I  do  beg  the  mem- 
bers of  this  Convention  to  pause  though  it  is  a  hard 
case.  I  call  upon  them  to  pause  before  such  a  system 
shall  lead  us  we  know  not  where. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead — As  the  learned  Deputy  from  North 
Carolina  has  said,  we  have  heretofore  itctcd  with  great 
prudence  in  relation  to  matters  which  have  reference  to 
the  action  of  civil  governments.  And  although  all  my 
sympathies  are  in  favor  of  this,  though  I  cannot  express 
the  feehng  of  my  heart  at  the  oppression  of  the  poor 
Indian,  and  though,  after  hearing  the  letter  of  the 
Oneidas  read,  having  followed  them  from  time  to  time 
until  they  had  acquired  a  home  on  the  borders  of  Lake 
Michigan,  I  would  if  I  could  consistently,  say  at  once, 
let  ns  sustain  this  petition  of  the  Bishops,  but  prudence 
is  an  important  word  in  a  body  like  this.  We  are  op- 
posed to  the  blending  of  Church  and  State.  We  begin 
by  asking  the  State  to  grant  certain  things  ;  howbeit, 
this  may  be  reasonable,  the  question  is  where  will  it 
end  ?  Suppose  after  a  time  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  should  apply  to  us  to  do  something,  to 
transact  some  business  which  would  be  foreign  to,  or 
ultimately  injurious  to,  our  ecclesiastical  economy. 
They  would  plead  at  once,  you  have  done  the  same 
thing;  you  have  initiated  this  step.  Although  at  first 
my  whole  mind  went  willi  the  proposition,  as  a  prudent 
man  1  cannot  vote  for  it. 

ilr.  J.  Prlngle  Smith — The  subject  before  the  Con- 
tention is  one  of  no  ordinary  import,  and  for  that 


147 


reason  I  shall  venture  to  say  a  word  or  two  upon  the 
proposition.  I  should  be  sorry  to  see  this  Convention 
Interfere  in  any  way  with  merely  and  purely  political 
questions.  I  think,  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  something 
may  be  done  upon  this  subject  now  before  us  without 
subjectiug  ourselves  to  tliis  dilliculty  or  this  charge. 
Our  relations  with  the  ludians  generally  is  one  of  very 
great  interest,  not  only  to  this  body  as  a  religious  body, 
but  to  the  civil  autliorities  of  the  country,  tiud  one 
which  excites  in  the  civil  authorities  a  very  deep  inter- 
est, at  least  those  of  them  who  are  not  connected  with 
the  attempted  speculations  that  are  iu  their  purpose  in- 
tended to  defraud.  We  have  no  very  settled  Indian 
policy.  The  theory  of  our  Government  is  that  the 
nation  is  the  guardian  of  all  the  Indian  tribes.  And  I 
think  I  may  say  the  theory  of  this  (Jouvention  is  that 
we  are  or  ought  to  be  in  some  measiu'e  the  guardian  of 
their  morals  and  their  spiritual  condition.  Whatever 
we  can  do  in  connection  with  this  last  thought  as  a  re- 
ligious body,  without  directly  coming  in  contact  with 
political  questions,  it  seems  to  me  is  our  duty.  The 
whole  difficulty  growing  out  of  this  subject  results  from 
the  fact  that  the  ludians  are  not  informed,  and  that 
they  are  the  creatures  upon  whom  speculators  prej'. 
Covetous  men  seek  to  defraud  them  ;  and  the  govern- 
ment should  be  glad  for  any  suggestion  that  we  may 
make  that  will  aid  them  iu  preventing  these  frauds  and 
speculations.  1  desire  to  say  to  this  Convention  now 
or  to  give  them  a  fact  in  connection  with  this  idea. 
Not  long  since  a  treaty  was  made  with  the  Osage  In- 
dians, by  which  they  sold  eight  million  acres  of  land  to  a 
single  railroad  company  for  the  sum  of  sixteen  hundred 
thousand  dollars, — aljout  twenty  cents  per  acre.  It  is 
understood  that  that  land  is  worth  to-day  from  three  to 
tive  dollars  an  acre.  Now,  under  the  policy  and  practice 
of  our  government,  before  this  contract  of  sale  can  be 
confirmed  and  made  perfect,  it  is  to  receive  the  sanction 
or  ratification  of  the  Senate.  It  is  now  before  that  body 
with  differences  of  opinion  in  regard  to  the  question  of 
its  confirmation  of  those  outside  of  that  body,  as  interest 
may  create  that  opinion.  Every  body  who  knows  any- 
thing about  it,  knows  that  the  contract  was  made  to 
defraud  the  Indians.  Everybody  knows  that  the  laud 
was  sold  for  vastly  less  than  it  was  worth,  and  as  a  fact, 
as  the  Convention  ought  to  know,  the  sale  was  made 
without  security  for  the  sum  to  be  paid  ;  for  all  the  se- 
curity that  they  received  is  the  bonds  of  the  railroad 
company,  payable  in  sixteen  years,  a  hundred  thousand 
dollars  a  year,  without  any  endorsements,  any  mort- 
gage, any  security.  Now,  it  is  impo.ssible  that  we  can 
evangelize  the  Indians  or  carry  Clirislianily  among 
them,  while  the}'  are  the  subjects  of  our  cupidity,  the 
cupidity  of  those  that  seek  to  impose  upon  them.  The 
goverment  has  no  desire  that  these  frauds  should  be 
practiced,  and  the  govei-nment  has  the  desire  that  those 
Indians,  those  tribes  sliall  receive  the  gospel  —  that  it 
shall  be  spread  among  them  as  fast  as  it  may  be;  and 
tlie  government  will  be  glad  of  any  moial  sentiment  or 
moral  movement,  or  Christian  movement  which  we  or 
anybody  can  make  that  will  tend  to  save  the  Indian^ 
from  these  efforts  to  destrt)y  them.  If  they  are  to  subuiil 


to  changes  of  location,  which  such  impositions  con- 
stantly require,  we  cannot  expect  to  obtain  their  confi- 
dence, nor  with  any  good  hope  go  and  preach  to  them 
the  gospel.  If  I  understand  the  proposition  before  this 
House  this  morning,  it  is  in  reference  to  the  Oneida  In- 
dians. I  do  not  kno\v  the  particulars  of  the  case ;  but 
I  see  as  well  as  I  can  understand  from  an  indistinct 
hearing  of  the  matter,  that  they  have  been  subjected  to 
the  same  fraud  that  I  have  alluded  to  in  reference  to  the 
Osages ;  and  I  have  instances  in  my  mind  embracing 
similar  pi'inciples.  They  come  now  and  pray  us  to  help 
them  against  the  consummation  of  this  fraud.  Is  there 
any  politics  in  that  ?  It  involves  no  party  question.  It 
is  making  no  difference  of  opinion  between  this  party 
or  that  party.  It  is  standing  up  for  God's  right  and 
God's  justice  to  a  nation  or  a  class  of  people  whom  it  is 
the  duty  of  humanity  to  protect.  I  do  not  see  that  by 
expressing  an  opinion,  such  as  the  House  of  Bishops 
have  expressed,  we  are  in  any  way  attempting  to  re- 
form all  the  abuses  of  the  world,  as  some  gentleman  has 
said.  We  do  not  propose  to  go  out  of  the  United  States 
nor  beyond  that  class  of  people  that. are  within  our  bor- 
ders, whom  it  is  our  duty  to  protect.  We  do  not  pro- 
pose any  general  crusade  for  promulgating  our  reUgiou ; 
but  we  simply  say  to  tliis  tribe,  we  will  give  you  oui' 
moral  aid  to  assist  you  against  frauds  and  impositions. 
As  I  understand  this  proposition,  I  should  be  very  glad 
to  see  this  Couvention  take  a  wider  view  of  this  matter ; 
and  I  think  they  could  do  that  without  coming  into 
conflict  with  any  party,  or  being  subject  to  the  charge 
of  interfering  in  politics.  I  think  it  would  be  our  right 
to  look  to  this  whole  question,  connected  as  it  is  with 
the  spread  ofthe  gospel  aiid  the  carrying  of  intelligence, 
and  improvement,  moral  as  well  as  spiritual 
among  a  class  of  inhabitants  whom  it  is 
our  duty  to  raise  up,  not  to  beat  down,  but 
to  lift  up  with  all  the  power  of  civilization  that  we  can 
command.  This  in  no  way  brings  us,  as  I  understand 
it,  into  conflict  with  any  party  in  politics,  or  any  depart- 
ment; of  the  government ;  for  I  feel  sure  that  any  moral 
movement  that  would  give  a  healthy  tendency  to  public 
seutinient,  and  help  restrain  these  constant  efforts  to 
defraud  these  ludians  would  be  regarded  with  favor  by 
the  authorities  of  the  general  government.  I  hope  this 
resolution  will  pass.  I  hope  the  whole  subject  will  be 
considered,  and  a  respectful  memorial  presented  to  the 
government,  lookmg  to  the  best  means  of  preserving 
the  morals  of  the  Indians,  of  educating  them,  and  of 
carrjang  the  gospel  among  them.  I  ask  pardon  of  the 
Convention  for  detaining  them  as  long  as  I  have ;  but 
I  feel  that  there  is  so  much  involved  in  this  question, 
that  it  has  deserved  the  few  brief  moments  I  have 
given  it 

Rev.  Dr.  DeKoven— These  Oneida  Indians  were  set- 
tled in  New  York.  They  were  converted  to  the  Church 
before  the  Revolutionary  war.  A  portion  of  them 
moved  to  Wisconsin  in  1829  or  thereabouts,  and  the 
rest  have  been  gradually  following  them,  until  now 
about  twelve  hundred  Indians  are  there  settled  on  some 
sixty-five  thousand  acres  of  laud  in  Wisconsm.  Ol 
Uicse  twelve  hundred    Indians  two-thirds   are  CliuicU 


148 


people  under  the  charge  of  a  faithful  and  earnestmis. 
sionary  church.  Now  the  trouble  is  simply  this. 
Their  land  is  very  good  ;  it  is  good  timber  land  ;  it  is 
land  they  have  improv(id  ;  and  the  speculators  have  got 
their  eyes  upon  it.  Bo  they  take  a  lew  drunken  Indians 
and  put  them  up  to  make  au  agitation  in  favor  of  its 
being  sold.  And  so  every  six  months  this  little  com- 
munity of  Christian  Indians  is  agitated  with  the  feeUug 
and  the  trouble  of  being  removed  fi'om  their  country. 
They  have  objections  to  it.  The  first  is  that  it  will 
break  up  their  Christian  civilization.  The  second  diffl- 
culty  is  this,  that  the  elder  persons  among  them,  though 
Christians,  are  not  fully  civilized  ;  and  the  more  thought- 
ful Indians  know  full  well  that  if  these  men  get  the 
money  for  their  lands  and  move  west,  they  "nill  spend 
their  money  aud  that  will  be  the  end  of  it.  It  will  be 
the  destruction  of  their  civilization  and  Christianity  for 
this  people  to  be  removed  at  this  time.  They,  there- 
fore, send  a  prayer  to  this  House  to  present  to  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  luterior  that  they  may  be  left  in  their  pos- 
sessions. This  prayei'  comes  here ;  the  House  of 
Bishops  endorse  it ;  they  send  it  down  to  us  to  adopt.  I 
cannot  see  that  this  is  a  political  matter.  I  should  not 
be  in  favor  of  mingling  in  any  political  matter,  but  I 
cannot  see  how  anybody  cau  conceive  that  this  present- 
ing a  prayer  in  behalf  of  those  that  belong  to  their  own 
household  of  faith  can  he  distorted  into  a  political  ac- 
tion. It  is  simply  presenting  a  petition  in  behalf  of 
those  who  are  our  own  brethren  that  they  may  be  saved 
from  the  destruction  and  loss  of  the  civilization  and 
Christianity  which  they  have. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haigut  in  the  Chair. 

The  President  addressed  the  House  as  follows : 
Having  taken  some  little  partln  1859  in  trying  to  pre- 
vent the  passage  by  this  House  and  the  General  Con- 
vention, of  one  of  the  most  innocent  resolutions  that 
could  possibly  be  imagined.  I  beg  to  re-state,  in  refer- 
ence to  this  case,  the  principles  upon  which  the  House 
deliberately  acted.  Nothing  could  have  been  more 
simple  aud  more  innocent  and  just  than  the  proposi- 
tion which  was  then  brought  before  this  House.  But 
the  House  decided  by  an  overwlielming  vote  that  it 
would  not  entertain  any  question  whatever  which  re- 
quired its  coming  before  the  civil  authorities  in  regard 
to  any  question  of  the  discretion  of  those  authorities. 
The  principle  estahlishedthe  n  by  the  action  of  this 
House  was  obsia  priitcipiis — don't  begin.  The  influence 
of  the  members  of  this  House  as  citizens  is  ten  times 
stronger,  if  they  would  exert  it,  than  the  influence  of 
this  Ido-use  as  a  House.  The  Episcopal  Church  is 
nothing  as  to  political  influence  in  this  country.  It  is  an 
absolute  rdhil ;  but  the  influence  of  the  members 
of  this  House  exert-ised  in  their  respective  com- 
munities as  citizens  can  be  made  to  tell  powerfuU}' 
upon  the  Government.  And  if  you  would  here  or  else- 
where originate  proceedings  to  operate  upon  the  Gov- 
ernment, not  merely  to  preserve  the  rights  of  the 
Oneidas,  but  as  was  recommended  by  the  Bishop  of 
Minnesota,  to  change  the  whole  jjolicy  of  tlie  Govern- 
ment in  regard  to  treating  the  Indians  as  a  nation,  and 


to  have  them  treated  as  individuals,  especially  upon 
the  reservations,  you  would  do  a  glorious  thing  for  the 
cause  of  humanity  in  tliis  countiy  in  reference  to  those 
oppressed  tribes  ;  l)ut  it  is  not  necessary  that  it  should 
be  a  party  question  in  order  to  be  a  political  one.  No 
party  is  tbrmed  in  the  State  with  reference  to  this  ques- 
tion, but  still  it  is  a  political  matter  ;  it  is  a  matter  re- 
ferring itself  to  the  discretion  of  the  civil  government ; 
and  if  we  commence  as  a  Christian  body,  as  a  Church,  to 
ask  the  Government  to  adopt  a  particular  policy  in  re- 
gard to  this  question,  why  not  ask  them  to  adopt  a 
particular  policy  in  regard  to  any  other  questions  that 
may  arise  y  Why  not  throw  ourselves,  as  a  Church, 
into  the  whirling  stream  of  political  actions?  You 
cannot  draw  the  lines  ;  once  begin,  you  have  establish- 
ed the  precedent — a  precedent  which,  as  it  has  been  the 
great  detriment  of  so  many  religious  bodies,  may  ter- 
ribly convulse  aud  injure  even  our  own.  I  should  be 
glad  to  sign  this  letter  and  something  far  more  exten- 
sive, tar  more  thorough,  as  a  citizen  of  the  United  States 
having  a  vote  ;  but  I  should  be  very  reluctant  to  sign 
that  as  President  of  this  House. 

Mr.  Welsu — I  rise  to  vary  my  motion.  The  dele- 
gates from  Wisconsin  naturally  have  some  diflidence  in 
examining  the  subject,  and,  therefore,  move  that  it  be 
referred  to  a  special  eommitte  of  thi'ee  clerical  and  lay 
members  to  consider  and  report.  What  do  we  know 
of  the  thing  V  This  subject  was  considered  at  Rich- 
mond, and  I  believe  that  it  touched  every  one  that  was 
present.  But  we  should  carefully  first  see  whether  the 
facts  stated  there  are  such  as  we  can  testify  to — whether 
we  believe  that  it  is  really  a  subject  that  we  think  im- 
portant— then  whether  we  are  prepared  to  vary  from 
our  practice  and  petition  the  Government  with  the  par- 
ticular knowledge  that  some  other  religious  body  may 
petition  in  the  opposite  way,  with  the  knowledge  that  a 
ward  politician  can  go  into  Congress  and  exert  more 
Influence  than  this  entire  Convention.  My  proposition 
results  from  no  want  of  interest  in  the  Indians,  it  is 
made  because  I  feel  tlie  deepest  Interest  in  them  and 
am  willing  to  tlo  all  that  I  can,  that  I  ask  that  the  mat- 
ter be  referred  in  this  way. 

Gov.  l^'isii — It  strikes  me  that  there  is  no  occasion  of 
the  reference  of  this  subject  to  a  coumiittee.  The 
object  of  a  comnuttee  would  be  to  investigate  the 
facts,  which  I  presume  are  pretty  well  known  to  us,  and 
report  upon  them.  The  object  of  a  committee  would 
not  be  to  advise  as  to  the  policj  or  course  to  be  pur- 
sued liy  this  Convention.  The  question  other  than 
that  of  reference  is  of  coucurrence.  Now,  Sir,  if  any  per- 
sons on  this  floor  are  more  especially  than  others  called 
upon  for  sj-uii)athy  with  the.se  Oneida  Indians,  I  pre- 
sume tliey  are  the  delegates  from  New  York  ;  possibly  I 
sliould  except  those  from  Wisconsin  who  have  taken 
them  from  us.  They  are  children  of  New  York.  We  have 
still  in  our  borders  a  branch  of  these  Oneida  Indians.  It 
has  been  my  lot  to  be  brought  officially  into  contact 
with  them,  and  I  can  say  from  the  bottom  of  my  heart 
that  I  sympathize  with  them  over  all  tlieir  wrongs,  and 
and  they  are  many.     But,  Sir,   are   these   wrongs  of  a 


,149 


character  which  a   Convention  of  a  Church   is  called 
upon  to  take  notice  of '!    I  apprehend  not.    We  anc  sat- 
isfiedthat  two-thirds  of  this   tribe  are  Cliristiaus  and 
belong  to  our  Cluirch  ;  but  one  third  not  so.     We  are 
told  that  tliere  is  a  division  and  that  the  question  which 
they  desire  our  aid  in  solving  is  one  of  internal  policy — 
one  of  the  sale  of  their  lamls  and  their  reijioval.     It   is 
not  a  question  of  Christian  benediction  among  them ; 
it  is   not  one  of  propagation  or  extension   of   our  own 
Church  among  them  ;  it  is  a  question  of  property  ;   it  is 
a  question  of  internal  Indian  politics.  Now  it  strikes  me 
that  that  is  a  question  in  wliich  this  Church  as  a  body 
should  not  interfere.  It  has  been 'the  policy  and  the  wis- 
dom of  this  Church  in  the  past  to  abstain  from  the  first 
step  in  the  direction  of  those  questions  which   address 
themselves  strongly  to  tlie  s3'mpathies  or  sentiments  of 
the  Indians.     Remembering  the  course  of  this  Conven- 
tion in  the  past,  we  see  the  wisdom  of  that  policy.    We 
have  seen  a  quasi  political    question  which  addressed 
itself    strongly  to    the   sympathies,    rending    asunder 
every  denomination  of  Christians  in  this  country,  be- 
cause they  allowed  themselves  on  a  question  of  senti- 
ment and  sympathy  to  interfere  and  express  an  opinion. 
This  Church   entertaining  among   its  individual  mem- 
bers  sentiments    quite   as  strong   and   deep    as   those 
which  divided  other  Churches  held  that  it  was  not  in 
the  province  of  the  Church  to  express  oinuious   other 
than  those  relating  to  the  great  questions  commilled  to  it, 
as  the  legislators  of  a  Christian  Church.    And  although 
the  course  of  strife  really  for  a  time  kept  the  members  ol 
this  Church  from  coming  together,  yet  the  Church  was 
united,    and  the  moment  the  physical   force  was  re- 
moved we  have  come  together  and  are  seated  here  as 
thirty  years  ago.  Now  this  question  of  Indian  policy  is 
only  in  its  earliest  stage.  We  know  not  what  questions 
are  to  arise  alTecting  this   small  remnant  of    the  former 
owners  of   the  whole  of  these  lands.     They  have  been 
gradually  wasted,  and  concentrated  in  the  West.  There 
arises  a  new  and  difficult  question  for  the  Government 
to  deal  with.     Whatever  maybe  om-  sympathies — sym- 
pathies are  tlie  worst  aid  and  sugges\ors  of  legislation. 
I  think  it  would  be  better  to  act  as  individuals  not  as  a 
body.     Let  us  not  commit  this  Convention  to  any  ex- 
pression of  opinion  on  the  subject  as  to   whether   these 
Indians  should  or  should  not  stU  their  lands.     Leave  it 
to  the  Government  to  decide  that,  and,  as  our  worthy 
President  has  just  said,  individuals  can  bring  a  stronger 
influence  to  bear  than  can  the  collective   voice  of  tliis 
body.     If  we  speak  in  any  one  direction  we  shall  have 
other  bodies  speaking  in  an  opposite  direction.    There 
are  strong  interests  at  work  to  bring  about  this  thing 
which  we  deprecate.  Instead  of  refei-ring  this  thing  to  a 
committee  I  should  prefer,  with  all  deference,  to  move  a 
non-concurrence.  I  do  not  wish  to  exhibit,  or  that  this 
House  should  exhibit,  any  want  of  deference  to  a  mem- 
ber of  the  House,  still  less  that  this  House  should   ex- 
hibit any  want  of  sympathy  with  these   poor  Indians  ; 
but  there  is  that  one  grand  principle  which  1  think  this 
House  should  not  lose  sight  of,  that  of  abstaining  from 
all  questions  outside  of  its  own  policy,  its  own  interest, 
its  own  growth.     If  this  motion  should  lie  disposed  of 


and  the  committee  refused,  I  move  that  this  House  may 
respectfully  non-concur  with  the  action  of  the  House  of 
Bishops. 

liev.  Dr.  Stubbb,  of  New  Jersey :—  I  have  almost 
thought  it  would  be  a  sin  for  any  elergjiuau  to  keep 
silence  on  a  subject  like  this.      I  think  the  gentleman 
who  has  just  taken  his  seat  has  misstated  the  question. 
lie  has  said  that  the  question  is  one  of  property  and  civil 
right.     I  deny  it ;  it  is  not  the  language  brcjught  before 
us  by  the  Indians.     The  petition  of  those  poor  Indians 
is  that  they  are  likely  to  be  deprived  of  their  common 
Christianity  — to  have  their  chaplain  driven  from  them. 
They  do  not  say  anything  about  the  title  to  their  lauds; 
they  plead  to  us  to  save  them  from  being  driven  back 
again  to  heathenism.     They  say  that  their  agents  wish 
to  deprive  them  of  their  religious  privileges,  of  their 
Christian  privileges.    Now,  is  that  a  matter  of  politics — 
a  thing  unworthy  of  this  convention  'i    I  deny  the  state- 
ment made  by  that  gentleman  as  well  as  by  one  on  the 
oUier  side,  that  this  is  a  question  of  mere  property.    It  is 
one  that  makes  an  appeal  to  our  hearts,  to  prevent  these 
poor  Indians  from  relapsing   into  heathenism  by  being 
deprived  of  the  privileges  of  Christianity,  by  having 
their  religious  teacher  driven  from  them.      If  there  is 
any  question  worthy  of  this   House  to  entertain,  it  is 
that  question.    Reference  was  made  to  the  action  of  the 
last  General  Convention.    Is  this  Convention  infallible!' 
Does  it  feel,  because  we  have  pursued  a^  course  at  one 
time,  that  we  sliould  pursue  it  again  ?      I  do  not  know 
what  action  was  referred  to,  and  I  do  not  care ;  because 
if  any  action  was  taken  by  it  unworthy  of  a  Christian 
body,  we  ought  now  to  abjure  it.    The  gentleman  says 
obatuprincipiis,    I  say  so  too.     I  say  at  this  time,  in  the 
name  of  all  that  is  sacred,  oppose  any  principle  which 
will  hinder  you  from  doing  au  act  of  common  humanity. 
It  would  be  a  shame,  as   I  conceive,  that  these  poor 
creatures  coming  to  us  and  begging  us  as  Christian  men 
and  brethren  to  save  them  from  being  deprived  of  their 
Christian  rights  and  privileges,  and  by  the  deprivation 
of  which  they  may  not  only  be  excluded  from   the 
Church  of  God  but  from  Heaven  above — I  say  it  would 
be  a  shame  for  us  to  stand  bj'  and  to_refuse  to  intercede 
for  them,  and  to  put  it  on  the  ground  that  we  are  afraid 
ol  meddling  with  the  politics  of  the  country.     God  for- 
bid that  we  should  refuse  to  interlere  with  such  pt)litics. 
We  should  use  all  our  power  to  protect  the  innocent, 
or  save  any  wretched  community  from  being  oppressed. 
Our  venerable  Chairman  has  said  thiit  we  may  act  as  cit- 
izens, and  not  as  a  Council.  He  says  that  this  Council  is 
unknown  to  the  government,  and  that  is  a  mere  nega- 
tion.   I  thought  this  Council  was  more  important  than 
that.     I  believe  the  attention  of  this  whole  country  is  at 
this  time  directed  more  or  less  to  this  very  Council.     I 
believe  we  are  exercising  a  great  influence,  not  only  in 
this  Church  but  in  this  country,  by  the  measures  we 
take  here.  I  say  that  this  Council  would  have  great  intlu- 
ence  in  this  country   and   with    this  government,  if  it 
would  intercede  in  behalf  of  humanity  and  religion.     I 
I  say  for  us  to  reluse  a  petition  of  that  kind  would  put 
us  before  this  government  as  a  council  which  refused  to 
do  its  Christian  duty,  and  absolutely  riyected  the  peli- 


150 


tioDs  of  these  poor  creatures  that  come  at  our  doors 
and  beg  us  in  the  name  of  mercy  to  save  them  from  the 
wretchedness  to  which  they  are  exposed. 

Let  me  refer  you  to  some  instances  of  the  past,  which 
I  think  are  of  more  consequence  to  us  tlian  the  action 
of  the  last  General  Convention.  We  are  all  familiar 
with  the  noble  conduct  of  that  great  archbishop  of 
Milan,  who,  because  the  emperor  stood  aloof  and 
allowed  citizens  to  be  destroyed,  did  not  hesitate  to  cut 
him  off  from  the  communion  of  the  Church ;  nor  was 
he  allowed  with  blood  on  his  hands  to  enter  its  sacred 
precincts;  and  he  did  that  at  greater  peril  than  we  are 
likely  to  suffer — at  the  peril  of  all  he  held  on  earth 
most  dear,  as  well  as  life  itself  Yet  he  did  not  refuse  or 
stand  still  for  fear  he  would  interfere  with  the  jjrivileges 
or  powers  of  the  Emperor,  or  lest  the  Church  should  be 
placed  in  the  position  of  meddling  with  the  politics  of 
the  country.  Let  us  follow  that  noble  example,  whether 
it  be  as  bishops,  clergymen  or  laymen,  or  as  a  Council 
of  the  Church.  I  say  that  this  Council  does  not  take 
away  our  individuality ;  it  concentrates  it.  If  we  plead 
as  one  man,  we  none  the  less  plead  as  men  met  together 
in  the  council  of  the  Church  of  God.  I  am  surprised, 
I  am  astonished,  after  all  we  have  heard  here  of  the 
grievances  of  these  people,  I  am  surprised  when  we 
know  the  strong  sympathy  which  has  been  expressed  in 
their  behalf,  and  how  the  heart  of  the  whole  House  of 
Bishops  sympathizes  with  them  as  they  come  to  us  with 
the  simple  desire  that  we  would  concur  with  them  to 
petition  the  government  or  one  of  the  officers  simply, 
in  behalf  of  extending  to  this  people  the  offices  of  re- 
ligion by  which  they  are  to  be  made  happy  here  and 
saved  hereafter  —  I  am  surprised  that  we  should  refuse 
to  aid  them  on  the  ground  that  we  have  done  wrong 
heretofore,  and  are  afraid  forsooth  of  getting  blame  for 
meddling  with  the  politics  of  the  country. 

Mr.  Johnson  of  Connecticut : — My  friend  from  Penn- 
sylvania has  proposed  an  order  of  reference.  My  friend 
from  New  York  proposes  to  non-concur.  [Gov.  Fish  : 
— I  have  not  made  such  a  motion.]  I  rise  simply  for 
the  purpose  of  olfering  a  resolution  which  announces 
the  general  principle  which  has  governed  this  Conven- 
tion.   The  resolution  is  this ; 

Resolved,  That  this  Convention  sympathizes  strongly 
with  the  Oneidas  in  their  troubles,  and  fear  and  appre- 
hensions; but  it  is  the  policy  as  well  as  the  principle  of 
this  Convention  not  to  interfere  in  any  matters  of  civil 
government,  affecting  the  civil  interests  of  the  State. 

I  do  not  propose  to  debate  tlie  matter;  for  the  whole 
argument  is  already  made.  It  announces  a  principle 
which  I  presume  pervades  this  assembly. 

Hon.  S  B.  RuGGLES: — I  wish  merely  to  state  what 
has  been  the  policy  of  this  Convention.  I  was  in  the 
Convention  in  1859.  A  question  was  then  proposed  of 
a  petition  to  the  government  of  Spain  to  allow  Christian 
burial  to  the  members  of  our  own  Church  dying  in  the 
island  of  Cuba.  I  thought  that  was  a  harmless  propo- 
sition ;  but  that  question  was  postponed  upon  the  mo- 
tion, I  think  of  Mr.  Thomas,  of  Virginia  ;  and  other 
members  showed  the  impolicy  of  allowing  the  interfer- 
auce  of  the  Church  even  in  dijjlomatic  matters. 

Kev.  Dr.  Peterkin: — This  is  a  grave,  an  important 


subject,  and  I  do  not  pretend  to  say  that  I  feel  in  my 
heart  the  very  deep  interest  which  I  know  in  my  con- 
science I  ought  to  feel.  We  owe  a  very  great  debt  to 
the  Indians  of  every  name  and  of  every  kind.  And 
sometimes  when  I  meet  them,  as  I  did  here  at  tlie  Mis- 
sions, I  feel  somewhat  as  William  Wirt  said  he  did  when 
he  met  an  Indian  ;  that  he  was  disposed  to  bow  down 
and  apologise  to  him  for  the  wrongs  done  him  by  his 
forefathers.  The  cry  may  be  in  many  parts  of  this  coun- 
try, "  exterminate  them ;"  and  under  the  progress  of 
relentless  civilization  they  may  possibly  be  extermina- 
ted ;  but  as  has  been  said,  whatever  may  become  of 
them,  their  names  are  on  our  waters — we  may  not 
wash  them  out:  and  while  ever  we  have  a  Narraganset 
or  an  Ohio,  or  while  ever  the  Mississippi  rolls  his  deep 
volume  to  the  gulf,  we  can  never  forget  that  they  were 
the  original  owners  of  all  this  soil,  and  that  we  owe  to 
them  a  debt  we  cannot  pay  unless  by  the  most  perse- 
vering, earnest,  long  continued  efforts  to  bring  tliem 
into  the  fold  of  the  oae  shepherd,  Jesus  Christ.  We 
owe  them  this  as  a  matter  of  debt ;  and  it  becomes  us 
to  do  all  we  can  in  order  to  meet  our  obligalions.  But 
as  I  understand  it,  the  present  question  relates  to  one 
singfe  tribe  ,  and  if  I  have  heard  correctly,  that  is 
composed  of  twelve  hundred  persons ;  and  of  those 
twelve  hundred,  eight  hundred  are  already  considered 
to  be  in  connection  with  our  Church.  It  may  be  pre- 
sumed that  the  eight  hundred  are  opposed  to  the  alien- 
ation of  their  lands.  May  not  this  eight  htmdred 
outvote,  and  if  yon  please  outwit  the  four  hundred  who 
may,  from  improper  influences  being  brought  to  bear 
upon  them,  be  disposed  to  allow  this  alienation  of  their 
lands  ;  or,  if  upon  those  four  hundred  some  of  the  elo- 
quence which  we  have  heard  here  to-day  in  their  behalf 
were  exerted,  might  they  not  be  persuaded  that  tlieir 
best  interests  were  bound  up  with  the  interests  of  the 
majority,  and  they  should  i)eacefully  resist  every  etlbrt 
made  to  send  them  away  from  those  homes,  around 
which  I  suppose  many  dear  associations  cluster.  I 
would  say  in  i-egard  to  these  Oneidas,  I  presume  we  are 
specially  indebted  to  them ;  for  I  read  here  from  an  old 
number  of  the  Spirit  Missions,  where  a  quotation  is 
made  concerciug  Indian  policy  by  Henry  R.  Schoolcraft, 
with  regard  to  these  Oneidas. 

[The  speaker  here  read  an  extract  showing  that  the 
patriots  of  1775  awarded  to  the  aboriginal  tribes  the 
full  proprietary  right  to  the  soil  they  respectively 
occupied  ;  that  was  the  fii-st  step  in  the  politictd  exalta- 
tion of  the  Indians,  and  dated  from  the  treatieS  of  Fort 
Pitt,  1778,  and  Port  Stanwix,  1784.] 

The  latter  was  as  early  after  the  establishment  of  our 
independence  as  these  tribes  could  be  brought  to  listen 
to  terms  of  peace.  The  Six  Nations,  with  the  exception 
of  the  Oneidas,  sided  with  the  parent  country ;  the 
Oneidas  sided  with  the  colonies.  According  to  this  we 
may  in  part  owe  to  them  some  of  the  blessings  we  now 
enjoy.  It  may  be  afiBrmed  that  there  is  not  an  acre  of 
the  public  domain  in  the  United  States  that  has  not 
been  acquired  in  this  manner.  War  in  which  we  and 
they  have  been  frequently  involved  since  that  time,  has 
conveyed  no  territorial  riglit,  we  having  conquered 
them  in  the  field  not  to  acquire  territory,  but  to  place 


151 


them  in  a  position  to  ol)serve  liow  ninch  more  tbeir  in- 
terests would  1)C  promoted  by  tlie  plow  than  by  the 
sword.  The  idea  I  wish  to  impress  upon  this  House 
is  that  these  Oneidas  are  specially  deserving  our  care 
and  protection  ;  but  inasmuch  as  their  body  is  a  com- 
paratively small  one,  and  local  influence  sufflciently 
powerful  may  be  brought  to  bear  upon  the  government, 
it  may  not  be  expedient  for  this  body  as  such,  as  tlie 
representatives  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  to 
take  action  in  the  matter. 

Message  No.  43  from  the  House  of  Bishops. was  here 
received,  signifying  non-concurrence  in  the  amend- 
ments proposed  by  the  House  to  the  fourth  article  of 
the  Constitution  of  the  Board  of  Missions. 

Message  No.  44  gave  notice  of  the  adoption  of  a  I'es- 
olution  for  the  appointment  of  a  joint  committee  to 
consider  the  present  state  of  theological  education  in 
this  Church  and  the  means  for  its  facilitation  and  im- 
provement, and  to  report  thereon  at  the  ne.xt  General 
Convention,  and  also  to  confer  with  the  Bishops  upon 
the  subject  of  a  course  ot  studies. 

Message  No.  45  transmitted  a  concurrent  resolution 
for  adjournment  sin-e  die  on  Thursday  nest,  the  .29th 
inst. 

Gov.  Fish  offered  the  following  resolution  : 

Resolved,  That  this  House  respectfully  non-concurs 
with  the  House  of  Bishops  in  the  message  respecting 
the  Oneida  Indians,  for  the  reason  that  while  it  feels 
the  deepest  sympathies  in  the  trials  and  sufferings  of 
those  Indians,  it  is  of  the  opinion  that  it  is  unwise  and 
against  the  policy  of  this  Convention  and  the  interest 
of  the  Church  that  the  Convention  of  the  Church  should 
in  its  official  representative  capacity  interfere  with  ques- 
tions of  policy  confided  to  the  control  of  the  State. 

Rev.  Dr.  Andrews — The  question  before  us  is  sim- 
ply this.  The  Oneida  Indians  and  many  other  parties 
are  the  prey  of  rogues,  and  their  Christian  civilization 
is  incidentally  involved,  and  the  same  is  true  of  many 
other  parties — they  are  the'  prey  of  rogues  and  their 
Christian  civilization  is  likewise  involved.  The  ques- 
tion is  whether  this  Convention  ought  to  interfere  in 
such  cases.  I  am  prepared  to  vote  in  the  negative.  I 
second  the  resolution  of  the  gentleman  from  New  York. 

Bev.  Mr.  B.\nister — If  I  understand  the  petition 
aright,  there  is  one  clause,  which,  it  seems  to  me,  takes 
this  whole  question  from  the  political  sphere.  It  is  the 
statement  that  those  agents  are  attempting  to  drive  from 
among  them  their  missionaries  ;  and  this  proposed  ac- 
tion would  be  uotbinir  more  than  the  simple  exercise  of 
the  right  of  petition  in  regard  to  matters  coming  strict- 
ly in  our  purview,  bringing  the  whole  moral  force  of 
the  Convention  to  bear  upon  the  side  of  right  and  jus- 
tice. There  is  a  great  danger  which  the  gentleman  on 
the  other  side  of  the  house  has  pointed  out.  I  would 
be  the  last  person  in  the  world  to  vote  for  a  measure  of 
interference  in  political  matters.  But  there  is  some- 
thing to  be  said  on  the  other  hand.  We  ought  not  to 
hold  our  arms  in  calm  indifference  in  reference  to  the 
present  condition  of  members  of  our  own  Church.  I 
speak,  not  with  the  hope  of  changing  the  opinions  of 
other  people,  but  simply  to  do  my   duty,   and    indorse 


what  my  brother  from  New  Jersey  has  so  usefully  and 
ably  said. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  IIa-Ight  (In  the  chair,)  put  the  question 
upon  a  motion  to  commit :  which  after  a  division,  was 
lost  by  41  ayes  to  88  noes.  The  questiim  then  recurred 
ujjon  a  resolution  olfered  by  Gov.  Fish,  as  above  given. 

Judge  Battle  : — Whether  these  Indians  should  be 
removed  or  remain  there, — is  not  that  the  policj-  of  the 
government,  one  way  or  the  other?  And  when  we 
write  a  letter  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  is  it  not 
meddling  with  politics  ?  The  learned  clerical  member 
from  New  Jersey  goes  so  far  as  to  say  that  we  ought  to 
disregard  what  has  been  done  by  the  previous  Conven- 
tion, and  mix  up  ourselves  with  the  politics  of  the  day. 
That  is  the  extent  to  which  his  argument  goes — that 
we  should  depart  from  that  conservative  course  which 
has  led  our  Church  together  on  from  one  success  to  an- 
other, until  its  influence  overspreads  the  whole  land. 
Why  does  it  do  so  ?  Because  it  cautiously  abstains  from 
interference  in  any  matter  of  politics.  Suppose  the  prop- 
osition was  to  write  to  the  Secretaiy  of  the  Interior,  or 
to  any  other  secretary,  in  relation  to  the  colored  peo- 
ple of  the  South,  would  not  that  at  once  be  considered 
a  matter  of  policy  ?  And  what  is  the  difference  be- 
tween the  colored  people  of  the  South,  and  the  Indians? 
but  a  little  difference  in  the  color  of  the  skin.  We 
have  arrived  at  a  crisis ;  it  is  one  of  the  most  imjiortant 
questions  that  has  come  before  the  Convention.  If  we 
go  on  as  we  have  done,  we  may  expect  to  prosper,  and 
our  Church  extend  through  the  whole  land,  and  its  in- 
fluence in  a  few  years  be  better  than  the  influence  of 
any  other  Church  in  this  country ;  but  if  we  take  an- 
other course,  and  depart  from  that  which  has  heretofore 
led  us  to  peace,  prosperity  and  happiness,  and  interfere 
with  the  politics  of  the  daj',  what  will  be  the  conse- 
cpience?  The  speeches  I  have  heard  this  morning 
show  what  will  be  the  consequence  ;  we  shall  have  po- 
litical debates  in  this  Convention. 

Upon   the  suggestion  of  Mr.  McCrady,   of   South. 
Carolina,  Gov.  Fish  substituted  "inexpedient"  for  the 
word  "unwise"  in  his  resolution. 

Rev.  Dr.  Maiian  ; — I  desire  merely  to  say  I  cannot 
detect  the  slightest  shade  of  politics  so  called  in  that 
letter ;  and  I  request  it  to  be  read  merely  fr>r  the  gui- 
dance of  my  own  vote,  as  I  would  vote  against  the  in- 
troduction of  politics  in  a  Convention  of  this  kind  ;  but 
I  cannot  see  the  slightest  suspicion  of  anything  of  that 
sort.  It  seems  to  me  it  is  always  in  the  power  of  an 
inferior  to  ask  a  superior  to  protect  another  inferior.  It 
is  simply  a  request  made,  a  perfectly  lawful  rc(juest, 
which  may  be  either  refused  or  acceded  to.  And  es- 
pecially would  I  deprecate  the  reason  that  is  given  for 
not  acceding  to  this  request,  that  a  thing  of  this  kind  is 
interference.  Now  the  strongest  word  that  should  be 
used,  if  any  word  is  used  at  all,  would  be  intervention. 
I  cannot  see  even  intervention.  I  do  not  think  it  is  in- 
terference to  ask  one  in  a  simple  and  polite  way  to 
protect  somebody  else.  I*"  there  were  any  person  whom 
1  had  it  in  my  power  to  protect,  and  anybody  would 
ask  me  to  protect  him,  I  would  not  consider  it  the  least 


152 


interference  in  tlie  world.  I  dpprecate  sincerely  t'roiii 
the  bottom  of  my  heart  every  shade  of  interference  or 
meddling  with  political  things.  Yet  Ido  think  that  there 
is  a  rational  limit  even  to  a  principle  of  lliis  kind ;  and  we 
are  hound  as  rational  men  to  distinguish  between  inter- 
ference and  what  is  not.  While  there  is  danger  of  the 
Church  interfering,  there  is  danger  also  from  fear  of 
this,  that  the  fear  itself  will  become  servile,  and  degra- 
ding to  the  Church  as  a  spiritual  body,  having  the  great 
interests  of  God  and  man  in  charge.  I  think  there  is 
danger  of  excessive  timidity.  I  do  not  know  of  au}'- 
thing  tliat  is  more  perilous  to  a  spiritual  body  or  to  a 
spiritual  man  than  to  be  afraid  of  things  that  are  not 
worthy  to  inspire  fear. 

Mr.  Welsh  : — We  are  not  here  as  individuals  at  all. 
We  are  here  mei'ely  as  the  representatives  of  the  diocesan 
Conventions  ;  and  if  there  are  any  of  these  Conventions 
that  are  averse  to  meddling  in  politics  in  any  way,  we 
would  do  wrong  by  assenting  to  this  proposed  action. 

Judge  CoNYNGHAM : — The  letter  brings  before  this 
House  the  question  of  policy  not  only  in  this  particular 
case,  but  in  tact  it  may  be  said  to  apply  to  every  case  of 
the  removal  of  Indians.  It  is  a  question  which  gives 
rise  to  debate  and  dispute.  It  is  very  clearly  a  question 
of  policy. 

The  vote  was  then  taken  upon  the  resolution  offered 
by  Gov.  Fish,  and  it  was  adopted. 

The  Rev.  X)r.  Hubbakd  from  the  Comniittee  on  the 
Prayer  Book  respecting  a  proposed  table  for  daily 
prayer  during  the  season  of  Lent,  reported  there  was 
not  time  to  engage  in  such  a  work,  and  offered  a  resolu- 
tion that  the  subject  of  the  resolution  be  submitted  to 
the  judgment  of  the  Joint  Committee  on  the  Prayer 
Book,  to  report  if  they  think  proper  such  a  table  of  les- 
sons to  the  next  General  Convention. 

With  reference  to  the  resolution  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Ma- 
son proposing  certain  changes  in  the  language  of  the 
metrical  psalms  and  hymns,  the  Committee  recommen- 
ded that  the  resolution  be  referred  to  some  Committee, 
to  report  on  the  expediency  of  these  and  similar  changes 
to  the  next  Convention. 

The  Committee  also  noticed  a  communication  from 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Barnard,  of  Columbia  College,  on  the 
subject  of  the  cycle  of  the  Church,  and  recommended 
the  reference  of  the  communication  to  the  Joint  Com- 
mittee on  the  Prayer  Book. 

On  motion,  all  the  recommendations  of  the  Commit- 
tee were  adopted. 

Gov.  Fish  submitted  the  report  of  the  trustees  of  the 
funds  for  the  relief  of  orphans  and  widows  of  deceased 
clergymen  ;  no  returns  were  received  from  an  earnest 
appeal  issued  in  1859,  for  various  reasons :  and  the 
Committee  asked  to  be  discharged,  and  recommended 
the  charter  obtained  to  be  deposited  with  the  Registrar 
of  the  Convention.    Agreed  to. 

On  motion  of  Rev.  Dr.  Little.john,  the  House  con- 
curred in  the  resolution  communicated  from  the  House 
of  Bishops  in  Message  No.  44. 

The  question  of  concurrence  with  a  concurrent  res- 
olution  from   the   House  of   Bishops  to  adjourn    on 


Tlunsday  next  being  under  consideration,  after  some 
colloqu)',  the  subject  was  laid  on  the  table. 

On  motion  of  Rev.  Dr.  Littlejoiin,  a  Committee  of 
Conference  was  asked  for  with  reference  to  Message 
No.  43  from  the  House  of  Bishops,  signifying  non-con- 
currence in  Ihe  first  amendment  to  the  4th  article  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  Board  of  Missions. 

Rev.  Mr.  Moore  offered  a  resolution  of  reference 
[adopted,]  to  the  Joint  Committee  on  the  Prayer  Book, 
to  report  at  the  next  General  Convention  respecting  the 
expediency  of  providing  a  form  of  thanksgiving  for  the 
recovery  of  a  child  from  illness.  He  said, "  My  reason 
for  offering  this  is,  that  in  the  occasional  prayers  of  the 
Church,  there  are  two  for  therecoveiy  of  a  sick  person 
one  for  the  recovery  of  an  adult,  and  another  for  the 
recovery  of  a  child.  If  we  examine  the  structure  of  the 
prayer  for  a  child,  we  will  find  it  cannot  be  used  in  the 
case  of  an  infant,  because  it  supposes  that  the  person 
on  whose  behalf  the  thanksgiving  is  offered  is  in  the 
Church  himself  making  the  offering.  I  have  been 
called  on  myself  to  ofi'er  prayers  when  parents  were, 
grateful  for  the  restoration  of  their  offspring  whom  they 
have  supposed  near  death,  and  I  have  felt  embarassed 
not  to  find  any  occasional  prayers  for  such  a  case." 

On  motion  of  Rev.  Dr.  Hubbard,  the  following  reso- 
lution was  adopted. 

Benolved,  That  the  Joint  Committee  on  the  Prayer 
Book  be  instructed  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of 
introducing  into  the  standard  Pi-ayer  Book  of  this 
Church,  the  pointing  of  the  psalter  for  chanting  as  in 
the  standard  Prayer  Book  of  the  Church  of  England,  and 
report  upon  the  same  to  the  nest  General  Convention 

The  object  he  said,  is  to  afford  facility  to  the  prac- 
tice of  chanting,  which  is  a  growing  want  of  the 
Church. 

Rev.  Dr.  JLyson  moved  that  the  resolutions  which  he 
luxd  submitted,  and  which  had  been  laid  upon  the  table, 
be  taken  from  the  table  and  refei'red  to  the  Joint  Com- 
mittee on  the  Prayer  Book,  one  relating  to  the  introduc- 
tion of  the  word  "holy  "into  the.Nicene  Creed,  and  the 
other  to  punctuation. 

Hon.  S.  B.  RuGGi.ES : — I  offered  a  motion  to  the  same 
effect,  on  the  subject  of  the  translation  of  the  Nicene 
Creed,  which  I  hope  will  be  referred  to  the  Committee 
on  the  Prayer  Book. 

Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin — inquired  if  by  the  terms  of  Mr. 
Ruggles's  resolution,  the  committee  were  not  authorized 
to  print. 

Hon.  S.  B.  RuGGLEs — said  that  whatever  was  to  that 
effect  he  would  withdraw. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead  : — That  committee  has  nothing  to  do 
but  to  give  us  a  prayer  book  according  to  the  standard 
edition ;  and  has  nothing  to  do  with  inserting  the  word 
"  holy  "  or  any  other  word.  If  the  House  choose  to  ap- 
point a  committee  on  a  new  standard,  very  well. 

Rev.  Dr.  Hubbard  : — we  have  already  referred  to 
that  committee  the  printing  of  the  Psalter,  and  also  the 
restoration  of  the  words  left  out  by  error. 

The  President  : — The  resolutions  of  reference  this 
moiniiig  have  all  mistaken  the  character  of  the  commit- 


153 


tee.  It  was  merely  a  committee  to  prepare  a  standard 
edition  as  adopted  in  1844.  Tliere  ought  to  be  a  com- 
mittee to  consider  the  various  resolutions  of  change 
which  have  been  proposed. 

Rev.  Dr.  IIaight: — The  committee  are  simply  au- 
thorized, after  having  e.\amined  the  plates,  if  they  find 
that  certain  typographical  errors  have  been  corrected  to 
let  those  corrections  stand,  and  to  correct  any  other  ty- 
pographical errors  wliich  they  may  decide  to  be  simply 
typographical  errors  :  their  business  is  to  give  a  correct 
edition  of  the  book  as  authorized  in  1844.  15esides  this, 
the  Convention  has  seen  proper  to  instruct  them  to  con- 
sider, and  report  to  the  next  Convention,  the  expediency 
or  inexpediency  of  adopting  certain  other  mmor  addi- 
tions. I  think  it  would  be  perfectly  competent  for 
them  to  consider  these  other  questions ;  but  they  can  do 
nothing  with  the  present  standard. 

A  motion  to  reconsider  the  several  resolutions  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  the  Standard  Prayer  Book  was 
lost. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mason's  resolutions  were  then  referred  to 
that  committee. 

Mr.  Cornwall — offered  a  proposed  canon  relating 
to  consecration  of  churches,  whic4i  upon  his  motion  was 
laid  on  the  table. 

Rev.  Dr.  Pierce,  of  Alabama: — 1  presented  several 
days  ago  a  preamble  and  resolution  in  regard  to  ajypoint- 
ing  a  committee  to  consider  whether  congregation.s  wor- 
shipping in  other  than  the  English  tongue  in  this  coun- 
try might  not  be  allowed  to  use  the  liturgies  to  which 
they  are  accustomed  in  their  native  country,  or  such 
modifications  of  them  as  the  Church  might  deem  wise, 
and  this  committee  to  report  to  the  next  Convention. 
After  this  matter  had  been  introduced,  the  adjournment 
interfered  with  any  action  on  it.  1  wish  to  bring  that 
subject  up  again.  I  would  state  if  I  am  allowed,  what 
my  design  is.  There  are  German  congregations  in  this 
country,  and  they  are  obliged  to  use  our  present  trans- 
lation into  German  of  the  Prayer  Book,  which  is  no 
more  our  Prayer  Book  than  any  other  book  is.  I  say 
it  is  not  our  Prayer  Book,  because  it  has  not  the  spirit, 
the  devotional  character  of  our  Prayer  Book.  It  is 
translated  into  German,  but  in  the  newspajjer  German 
of  the  day.  Every  German  scholar,  and  especially 
every  native  German  that  T  have  talked  with,  has  spoken 
in  this  way  about  it.  I  have  never  known  a  man  who 
was  officiating  to  Germans  that  was  able  to  use  that 
translation  as  it  stands  ;  and  without  giving  a  free  trans- 
lation instead  of  the  literal  translation  it  will  be  impos- 
sible to  adapt  it  to  the  use  of  Germans.  Many  passages 
in  the  Standard  edition  of  the  Bible  or  in  the  Lutheran 
version,  which  arc  introduced  into  the  liturgy  cannot  be 
introduced  properly  because  the  translation  given  in  the 
Lutheran  Bible  does  not  coincide  ;  and  if  the  meaning 
is  not  entirely  different,  it  has  a  shade  of  a  meaning 
different.  And  so  in  regard  to  the  Swedes.  Suppose 
there   is    a   restoration   of  unity   between    us   and   the 

20 


Swedish  Church.  We  have  an  English  congregation  in 
Stockholm ;  would  we  not  consider  it  very  hard  that  the 
Swedish  Church  should  require  us  to  throw  aside  that 
liturgy  which  is  endeared  to  every  Englishman,  and 
Churchman  in  the  United  States — the  very  language 
which  is  associated  with  a  thousand  recollections  of  the 
past — to  throw  aside  that,  and  to  adopt  a  newspaper 
translation  perhaps  of  the  Swedish  Ifturgy.  Now  in 
that  case  every  Churchman  would  say,  let  us  use  the 
liturgy  of  our  forefathers — that  which  we  have  been 
accustomed  to. 

Let  us  refer  it  to  a  committee  to  consider  whether  it 
would  not  be  reasonable,  wise,  anj^  charitable,  to  allow 
this  thing.  Then,  again,  there  is  the  Great  Eastern 
question.  Suppose  there  should  be  a  restoration  of  in- 
tercommunion bet^veen  this  Church  and  the  Greek 
Church.  Shall  we  insist  on  the  Greek  Church  throw- 
ing away  their  liturgy,  which  comes  down  from  Apos- 
tolic days,  and  adopt  a  modern  Greek  translation  of  the 
English  liturgy  ?  I  am  certain  that  if  gentlemen  will 
consider  this  important  matter,  if  they  will  just  place 
themselves  in  the  position  which  these  persons  hold — 
which  the  German,  the  Swede,  and  any  foreigner  would 
hold,  they  will  be  in  favor  of  this  reference.  Let  me 
add  another  thing.  We  are  obliged  to  adopt  this  prin- 
ciple in  part  now.  Although  our  Prayer  Book  is  trans- 
lated into  German,  yet  the  psalms  and  hymns  are  not 
translated  ;  and  therefore  any  congregation  worshipping 
in  German  is  obliged  to  resort  to  the  Lutheran  collection 
of  hymns,  or  they  can  have  no  hymnody  in  the  Church. 
We  have  already  admitted  the  principle  in  part ;  but 
the  proposition  is  not,  whether  we  will  admit  it  or  not. 
That  is  not  what  I  ask, — but  will  it  appoint  a  judicial 
committee  of  three  Bishops,  three  presbyters,  and  three 
laymen  to  consider  this  matter,  for  three  years,  and  af- 
ter that  is  done,  if  it  is  decided  that  the  use  might  be 
permitted,  every  liturgy  would  have  to  pass  the  exam- 
ination of  a  competent  committee  to  see  whether  or  not 
lit  is  in  accordance  with  our  standards.  I  think  there  is 
no  danger  in  this,  and  that  there  is  no  harm  in  consid- 
ering a  question  which  is  important,  and  becoming  a 
practical  question  if  there  is  to  be  an  extension  of  in- 
tercommunion of  the  American  Church  with  other 
branches  of  the  Church  Catholic.  My  resolution  is  as 
follows : 

Rexolredy  the  House  of  Bishops  concurring.  That  a 
committee  of  three  from  each  order  be  appointed  to 
consider  whether  it  would  not  be  reasonable,  wise,  and 
charitable,  to  allow  coigregations  worshipping  in  other 
tongues  than  the  English  to  use  the  liturgie  forms  to 
which  thev  have  been  accustomed  in  their  native  lands 
or  such  adaptations  of  the  same  as  may  be  consistent 
with  the  doctrines  and  worship  of  this  Church,  and  to 
report  to  the  next  General  Convention. 

Mr. :  I  would  suggest  the  propriety  of  refer- 
ring that  to  the  Committee  on  the  Prayer  Book  in  the 
German  tongue.  I  admit  the  importance  of  this  matter, 
having   ministered   among   the  Germans;  and   having 


154 


taken  a  great  deal  of  interest  in  their  behalf,  1  have 
found,  after  conversing  with  them,  that  they  have  great 
objections  to  the  use  of  our  Prayer  Book  in  its  present 
form.  I  am  informed  that  an  admirable  translation  of 
our  Prayer  Book  was  made  by  Professor  Falk,  of  Ra- 
cine College ;  but  I  regret  to  say  that  it  has  been  lost. 

On  motion  of  Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin,  and  with  the  con- 
sent of  Rev.  Dr.  Pierce,  Dr.  Pierce's  resolution  was  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  the  Prayer  Book  in  the 
German  language. 

Rev.  Dr.  Adams  : — I  have  a  question  which  I  should 
like  to  bring  before  this  House.  I  will  say,  in  the  first 
place,  that  it  is  not  a  Question  with  regard  to  bringing 
up  a  new  version  of  the  Nicene  Creed.  It  is  a  question 
that  has  been  considered  with  regard  to  the  omission  of 
the  word  "  holy."  We  have  the  salne  version  as  the 
English  Church.  The  English  Church  has  omitted  the 
word  "  holy."  In  the  definition  of  the  Holy  Catholic 
Church  the  original  Western  version  says:  "I  believe 
in  one  holy  catholic  and  apostolic  Church."  That  is 
the  version  of  the  West — of  the  Roman  obedience 
everywhere,  in  Italy  and  France.  In  the  Prayer  Book 
version  the  English  Church  has  started  away  fiom  the 
Western  version  of  the  Nicene  Creed  by  omitting  the 
word  "  holy."  I  have  heard  a  good  many  gentlemen 
an.\ious  to  restore  this.  I,  myself,  do  not  think  we  have 
authority  to  restore  it,  unless  we  can  understand  that  the 
English  Church  is  willing  to  restore  it. 

The  point  of  order  was  raised  that  there  was  no 
question  before  the  House  and  that  therefore  Rev.  Dr. 
Adams  was  out  of  order. 

Rev.  Dr.  Adams  : — I  will  say  that  I  think — [The 
question  of  order  was  again  raised.]  I  am  going  to 
read  the  resolution,  and  this  Convention  will  please  to 
attend  to  it.     [Laughter.] 

Reanlved,  the  House  of  Bishops  concurring,  That  the 
General  Convention  of  the  Church  in  the  United  States 
would  respectfully  solicit  from  the  Upper  and  Lower 
Houses  of  Convocation  in  the  English  Church  informa- 
tion as  to  the  time  and  occasion  when  the  word  "  Holy" 
was  omitted  in  the  Prayer  Book  version  of  the  Nicene 
Creed ;  by  what  authority  it  was  done,  and  what  reason 
— doctrinal  or  practical, — lies  at  the  bottom  of  this  ac- 
tion. 

And  in  order  that  this  be  done  with  due  respect  to 
our  venerable  mother,  the  Church  of  England,  that  the 
Presiding  Bishop  of  the  House  of  Bishops,  the  Chairman 
of  this  House  (Dr.  Craik  of  Kentucky),  with  the  senior 
clerical  member  of  the  same  (Dr.  Mead  of  Connecticut), 
together  with  the  Hon.  Hamilton  Fish  of  New  York, 
and  William  Welsh,  Esq.,  of  Philadelphia,. be  a  commit- 
tee to  make  this  inquiry  in  the  interval  and  report  to 
the  next  General  Convention. 

I  suppose  I  am  now  permitted  to  say  something.  [A 
voice  : — The  resolution  has  not  been  seconded.  A  Dep- 
uty : — I  second  it.]  They  say  we  shall  not  touch  this 
Western  version  of  the  creed  in  any  way  until  our 
mother  Church  of  England  touches  it.  I  therefore 
bring  this  resolution  forward  that  we  may  apply  to  the 


highest  legislative  authority  of  the  Church  of  England 
for  information  concerning  the  matter. 

A  motion  to  lay  the  resolution  on  the  table  was  lost 
by  a  dividing  vote. 

A  Deputy  : — The  omission  occurs  in  one  of  the 
Latin  translations  ;  and  there  are  three  other  variations 
between  the  two  Latin  versions.  The  one  to  which  he 
(Rev.  Dr.  Adams)  has  referred  deviates  from  the  Greek 
in  some  parts  The  other  Latin  translation  deviates 
from  the  Greek  in  other  parts;  and  consequently  they 
differ  between  themselves.  Now  the  question  arises, 
which  one  of  these  Latin  versions  shall  be  taken  as  au- 
thority. At  this  juncture,  we  are  seeking  under  this 
resolution  to  depart  from  the  Greek ;  so  that  really  we 
seem  to  be  at  sea  with  regard  to  the  very  creed  of  the 
Church.  It  does  seem  to  me,  that  these  questions  of 
variations  in  translations  while  the  substance  is  retained, 
would  keep  us  in  interminable  debate.  Now,  I  submit, 
after  having  used  this  Nicene  Creed  ever  since  we  have 
been  a  Church  in  the  country,  receiving  it  in  its  present 
form  from  the  Church  of  Englaod,  whether  at  this  stage 
of  the  history  of  the  Church  we  are  for  approximating 
either  the  Latin  or  the  Greek  Church.  All  the  varia- 
tions should  be  referred  to  the  same  committee. 

Rev.  Dr.  Adams  : — I  would  say  that  the  resolution 
is  not  in  regard  to  the  Greek  at  all ;  it  is  in  reference  to 
the  standard  version  of  the  English  Church,  and  to  in- 
quire why  that  word  "  holy  "  has  been  omitted  from  the 
translation. 

A  Deputy — remarked  that  the  word  "  holy  "  is  omit- 
ted from  the  Greek  as  used  in  the  liturgy  of  St.  Mark. 
It  may  be  derived  from  that- 

Rev.  Dr.  Pikrce — said  that  the  English  Church  was 
considering  this  matter,  and  that  the  Church  in  the 
United  States  had  the  same  right  to  consider  it  as  the 
English  Church. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Cornwall  the  resolution  was  refer- 
red to  the  Committee  on  the  Prayer  Book. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight — moved  that  the  Secretary  in  send 
ing  messages  to  the  House  of  Bishops  should  specify, 
and  desire  the  Secretary  of  the  House  of  Bishops  to 
correspondingly  specif)-  the  subjects  of  the  messages 
His  suggestion  in  the  form  of  a  motion  was  adopted. 

On  motion  of  Rev.  Dr.  Haight,  message  No.  35,  from 
the  House  of  Bishops,  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Christian  Education. 

Rev.  Dr.  Littlejohn — suggested  to  Dr.  Haight,  that 
it  would  be  well  to  specify  the  subject  of  the  message. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haigut — submitted  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  Conference  between  the  two  Houses  on  article  ' 
5  of  the  Constitution,  relative  to  the  subject  of  a  division 
of  dioceses,  with  a  resolution  to  transmit  the  same  to  the 
several  dioceses.  The  committee  transferred  the  re- 
strictions which  the  House  had  proposed  to  put  in  a 
canon  to  the  article  of  the  constitution,  making  the  dif- 
ference between  the  constitution  as  now,  and  after  the 
amendment,   to  consist  in  the   addition  of   the  words 


155 


originally  proposed  by  the  Committee  on  Canons  with 
regard  to  tlie  support  of  the  bishop,  and  in  tlie  reduction 
of  the  number  of  parishes  and  presbyters  so  as  to  read 
"six  parishes  and  six  presbyters"  instead  of  twelve  par- 
ishes and  twelve  presbyters. 

On  motion  of  Kev.  Dr.  Mead — the  resolutions  report- 
ed by  the  Committee  of  Conference  were  adopted,  the 
vote  being  taken  by  dioceses  and  orders. 

Kev.  Dr.  Ue  Kove.n  : — With  reference  to  message 
No.  35  from  the  House  of  Bishops  reported  that  no  ac- 
tion had  been  taken  by  the  House  of  Uishops  upon  the 
subject  of  the  first  resolution,  reported  by  the  Commit- 
tee on  Christian  Education,  and  adopted  by  this  House, 
and  transmitted  to  the  House  of  Bishops. 

On  motion,  the  Secretary  was  authorized  to  inquire 
the  reason  of  this  oversight. 

Kev.  Dr.  Haight,  fi-om  the  Committee  on  Canons, 
reported  back  the  canon  contained  in  message  number 
thirty-two,  from  the  House  of  Bishops,  on  the  subject  of 
dioceses  as  follows: 

That  no  minister  of  this  Church  shall  solemnize  mat- 
rimony in  any  case  where  there  is  a  divorced  wile  or 
husband  of  either  party  still  living,  but  this  canon  shall 
not  be  held  to  appl}'  to  the  mnocent  party  in  a  divorce 
for  the  cause  of  adultery  or  to  parties  once  divorced  seek- 
ing to  be  united  again. 

Rev.  Ur.  Goodwin  : — I  find  that  I  have  been  under 
stood  by  the  reporters  [not  by  the  reporter  of  Tlie  Church- 
man] and  otliers  as  having  maintained  on  the  floor  of 
this  House  that  marriage  should  be  indissoluble  in  any 
■  case  whatever,  even  in  the  case  of  adultery.  I  only 
maintained  that  it  might  be  expedient  for  the  civil  gov- 
ernment to  take  that  ground — that  it  might  be  to  the 
happiness  of  all  parties.  I  never  intended  to  hold  that 
the  law  required  that  it  should  be  absolutely  indissolu- 
ble. It  was  merely  an  expression  of  opinion  as  to  the 
expediency  of  the  civil  government  taking  that  ground. 
I  have  no  objection  to  the  canon  now  before  the  House. 
T  never  based  any  opinion  upon  any  interpretation  of 
Scripture  that  the  marriage  tie  is  absolutely  indissoluble. 
Whether  indissoluble  or  not,  it  is  not  required  by  our 
law  that  it  should  be  dissolved  in  that  case  ;  therefore 
the  question  is  free  for  any  civil  government  to  provide 
that  it  should  be  indissoluble  if  thought  to  be  expedient. 

Judge  CoMSTOCK : — The  canon  as  reported  does  not 
provide  tor  a  divorce  for  a  cause  antecedent  to  marriage. 
1  think  that  is  indi.spensuble.  Kvery  one  knows  that 
there  are  causes  pre-existing  which  are  fatal  to  the  mar- 
riage contract.  You  may  take  the  case  where  one  of 
the  parties  is  not  of  a  buitable  age  to  give  consent ;  or 
take  the  case  of  a  marriage  procured  hy  Ibrce  or  fraud. 
There  are  cases  antecedent  to  marriage  which  are  fat.il 
to  that  relation.  The  canon  as  reported  by  the  commit- 
tee broadly  forbids  a  clergyman  to  marry  a  party  who 
is  divorced  for  either  of  those  causes.  I  am  sure  the 
Convention  does  not  intend  to  do  that.  It  seems  to  me 
that  its   failure  to  provide  lor  the  cases  mentioned  is  ia- 


tal  to  the  canon  without  an  amendment.  I  will  suggest 
an  amendment  of  the  canon  so  that  it  shall  read  as  fol- 
lows : 

No  minister  of  this  Church  shall  solemnize  marriage 
in  any  case  where  a  previous  marriage  of  either  party 
shall  have  been  dissolved  for  cause  arising  subsequent 
thereto;  provided  that  nothing  herein  shall  apply  to 
•  the  innocent  party  in  case  of  divorce  for  adultery,  nor 
in  any  case  where  the  prior  marriage  relation  shall  have 
terminated  by  the  death  of  husband  or  wife. 

I  think  that  disposes  of  the  difficulty  1  suggested,  and 
embraces  all  the  other  points  of  the  amendment. 

Judge  Battle  : — I  think  the  learned  gentleman  from 
New  York  has  confounded  together  divorce  and  a  nul- 
lity of  marriage.  If  a  married  person  marries  a  second 
time  it  is  unnecessary  that  there  should  be  a  divorce  ;  it 
is  an  absolute  nullity.  If  a  man  marries  a  woman  under 
a  suitable  age,  it  is  no  marriage  at  all.  The  onlj  thing 
to  be  brought  before  the  court  is  to  determine  whether 
the  cause  was  sufficient  for  nullifying  the  marriage.  The 
gentleman  has  confounded  the  two  cases  of  the  declara- 
tion of  the  nullity  of  marriage  and  a  divorce.  It  seems 
to  me  that  the  canon  as  it  now  stands  meets  every 
case. 

Judge  CoMSTOCK  : — I  know  the  law  in  my  State  re- 
cognizes decrees  dissolving  the  marriage  contract  for 
causes  antecedent  to  its  declaration.  There  is  at  least 
an  ambiguity  in  the  canon  which  ought  not  to  exist. 

Kev.  Mr.  Labagii  : — 1  suggest  an  amendment  in  this 
form,  to  meet  all  the  dilierent  cases  that  may  aiise 
throughout  the  country.  The  amendment  is,  "Resolved, 
That  the  Bishop  and  the  standing  Committee  of  each 
diocese  constitute  an  ecclesiastical  couit,  to  e-xamine 
all  cases  of  remarriage  of  parties  who  have  obtained  di- 
vorces in  the  legal  tribunals  for  causes  other  than  thai 
of  adultery ;  and  their  decision  shall  govern  in  all  cases 
submitted  to  them."  I  believe  that  there  are  three 
classes  of  causes  for  divorce,  which  I  mentioned  the 
other  day,  one  for  sin  antecedent  to  marriage ;  the 
others,  subsequent  adultery  arid  abandonment  mention- 
ed in  the  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  I  will  only  pre- 
sent six  or  seven  different  case3,,[Laughter],  which  are 
not  fanciful  cases,  but  which  have  actually  arisen,  in 
order  to  show  what  embarrassments  there  are. 

Suppose  the  case  of  the  marriage  of  a  devout  com- 
municant, a  lady — and  I  rise  to  make  these  remarks 
more  particularly  in  behalf  of  that  sex,  that  suffers  most 
on  account  of  divorces,  for  various  causes.  Our  Legis- 
latures claim  the  right  to  consider  the  marriage  as  a 
contract,  and  supervise  that  contract,  and  claim  the 
right  wherever  the  contract  is  wilfully  violated  by  either 
party,  to  declare  it  a  nullity.  That  is  the  law,  and  we 
are  bound  to  submit  to  it.  1  will  present  some  cases 
w  hich  may  arise,  in  which  the  Legislature,  without  any 
hesitancy,  gives  a  divorce.  The  first  is  excessive  bru- 
tality. A  devout  communicant  of  the  Church  marries  a 
man,  and  in  less  than  a  year's  time,  she  finds  that  she 
has  lallen  into  the  hands  of  a  wild   beast  j  he  is  cruel  to 


156 


the  extreme ;  he  beats  her,  threatens  her  life ;  but  as  long 
as  there  is  no  divorce  he  has  a  legal  claim  upon  her, 
and  can  constantly  annoy  her.  The  only  remedy,  for 
her  safety,  is  to  apply  for  a  divorce.  In  the  course  of 
time,  this  excellent,  devout  christian  lady,  proposes  re- 
marriage, and  she  comes  to  her  pastor  and  says,  I  pur- 
pose to  re-marry.  He  says,  you  cannot ;  your  husband 
is  alive.  She  says  I  have  a  divorce  ;  but  he  replies,  the 
Church  will  not  allow  me  to  perform  the  rite ;  the  only 
way  j'ou  can  marrj'  is  to  cease  your  connection  with 
your  Church,  and  to  be  married  by  some  other  minister. 
I  will  give  the  case  of  mysterious  absence.  A  woman  is 
married  ;  her  husband  goes  out,  and  is  never  heard  of 
again.  The  suspicion  is  ibul  play ;  that  he  has  been 
murdered  for  his  money.  After  waiting  for  years,  she 
applies  for  a  divorce.  She  goes  to  her  pastor,  and  says 
she  wishes  to  be  married.  He  says,  we  have  no  certain- 
ty that  your  husband  is  dead,  and  under  these  circum- 
stagces  you  cannot  re-marry.  I  will  take  another  case — 
the  case  of  perpetual  imprisonment.  A  Christian  lady 
marries  a  man  who  commits  murder  ;  he  is  tried  for  the 
mm-der,  and  tlirough  the  power  of  money,  and  family 
influence,  the  sentence  is  imprisonment  for  life.  That 
man  has  committed  murder,  not  adultery,  but  she  can- 
not re-marry,  under  this  canon,  by  a  clergyman  of  the 
Church,  because  her  husband  has  committed  murder, 
and  is  locked  up  for  life.  If  he  had  only  committed 
adultery  she  might  marry.  [Laughter].  I  will  take 
another  case — beastly  drunkenness.  The  civil  courts 
have  decided  that  this  is  a  just  cause  for  divorce — that 
a  woman  is  not  to  continue  subject  to  maltreatment  by  a 
man  who  makes  himself  beastly  drunk,  and  does  not 
provide  for  his  family.  A  woman  is  not  compelled  to  be 
tied  to  the  leprous  carcass  of  a  beastly  sot.  The  law 
sets  her  free,  and  the  whole  community  justifies  her; 
but  the  Church  says  no,  and  that  she  cannot  marry 
again  and  continue  in  communion  with  the  Church. 
Take  another  case — marriage  under  false  pretences.  1 
am  not  giving  an  imaginary  case.  The  woman  is  mar- 
ried to  a  man  under  a  false  name.  After  a  time  the 
thing  is  discovered,  and  the  woman,  indignant  at  the  im- 
position that  has  been  practised  upon  her,  applies  and 
gets  a  divorce ;  but  under  this  canon,  she  cannot  be 
married  again.  Take  another  case.  A  man  marries  a 
lady  of  an  excessively  jealous  disposition.     [Laughter.] 

[The  Pkesident  : — The  time  is  up.] 

I  am  not  through  my  remarks.  I  have  not  stated 
all  the  cases.  [Laughter.]  I  was  going  to  state  this 
case. 

Mr.  J.  Pkingle  Smith:— I  rise  to  give  notice  that  1 
shall  move  to  lay  this  amendment  on  the  table  and  shall 
move  to  lay  every  proposition  upon  the  table  except 
such  as  go  to  perfect  the  canon  ofJered  by  the  committee. 
It  is  time  for  action  by  this  Convention.  If  the  standard 
of  the  Church  is  to  be  the  standard  of  the  Gospel,  if  she 
is  still  to  be  found  taithful,  unshaken,  unseduced,  unterri- 
fied,  her  standard   must  float  above  the  world,  its  tribu- 


nals, its  false  maxims,  its  honors,  its  delusions.  In  this 
matter  theie  can  be  no  compromise.  The  gentleman  from 
Connecticut  has  told  the  House  how  much  we  need  this 
canon  at  the  North.  I  unite  in  telling  how  much  it  is 
needed  at  the  South.  We  stand  upon  the  brink  of  a 
precipice  from  which  in  these  long  years  past  we  have 
been  kejjt.  1  urge  upon  the  House  immediate  action, 
unequivocal  decisive  action.  If  you  lower  the  standard 
of  the  Church  to  meet  the  prejudices  or  the  feelings  of 
the  world,  you  do  that  very  thing  for  which  the  scoffing 
world  is  ever  on  the  watch.  I  hope  we  shall  not  let  the 
sun  set  upon  our  inaction.  If  ever  the  path  of  day  seemed 
clear  as  the  noonday  sun  it  is  to-day.  Let  the  word  be 
onward.  The  action  of  this  body  will  not  only  affect 
those  of  its  own  commission  but  be  felt  everywhere 
throughout  this  broad  land.  JMow  if  there  be  a  lion  in  the 
path,  even  if  there  should  be  clashing  with  the  civil  au- 
thorities, it  wiU  not  only  be  accepted  but  counted  as  all 
joy  because  suffering  for  that  noblest  of  causes,  the  cause 
of  God's  truth. 

Kev.  Dr.  JVIahan  : — I  don't  know  that  it  is  necessary 
to  state  anything  with  regard  to  this  canon  as  proposed 
except  that  it  has  been  based  simply  upon  the  language 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  Himself;  and  the  single  de- 
fence of  this  canon  in  its  present  state  is  that  it  is  within 
that  language.  With  regard  to  innumerable  peculiar 
cases  that  arise  under  American  laws,  it  is  enough  to 
say  that  this  canon  is  merely  meant  as  a  directory  for 
the  minister  of  the  Church,  and  pronouncing  what  the 
Church  feels  to  be  lawful  marriage  according  to  God's 
word.  In  every  marriage  ceremony  we  have  to  warn 
the  parlies  that  if  they  are  joined  together  otherwise 
than  God  has  enjoined,  their  marriage  is  not  lawful ; 
"The  cause  of  adultery"  is  used  as  the  language  of  our 
Lord  Himself,  and  will  oi  course,  be  understood  by  the 
clergy  according  to  the  sense  of  the  passage  from  which 
it  is  taken.  According  to  many  the  term  adultery  will 
include  fornication ;  and  there  will  perhaps  be  some 
dill'erence  of  opinion  as  in  every  subject;  but  ic  will  al- 
ways be  perfectly  easy  to  know  whether  a  divorce  is  tor 
the  cause  of  adultery  or  some  other  cause  entirely  dis- 
tinct from  it.  It  is  thought  that  this  will  cover  the  case 
sulhcient  for  all  practical  purposes.  1  know  there  ia 
very  good  authority  for  the  interpretation  that  our  Lord 
meant  to  al.ow  re-marriage  in  case  of  divorce  for  adultery. 
Therefore,  as  we  cannot  make  a  canon  on  mere  private 
interpretation,  we  have  to  make  it  as  perfect  as  we  can. 
As  a  matter  of  Christian  perfection  and  as  a  matter  of 
God's  law,  in  the  highest  sense  of  the  word,  I  think  the 
canon  ought  to  be  that  no  marriage  can  be  performed 
in  any  case  whatever  where  the  husband  or  wife  is  still 
living. 

The  President  : — The  first  question  is  on  the  amend- 
ment ofiered  by  the  Deputy  of  Iowa — an  amendment  to 
the  amendment  ofiered  Ijy  the  gentleman  from  Western 
New  York  ;  to  refer  the  wliole  matter  to  the  Bishops  of 
the  Diocese  and  the  Standing  Committee. 


157 


A  vote  being  taken  upon  the  amendment  to  the 
ameudment,  was  lost;  when  the  question  recurred  upon 
the  amendment  offered  by  Judge  •Comstoeli.  The 
amendment  was  lost. 

Whereupon  the  vote  was  taken  upon  the  canon  as  re- 
ported by  the  committee,  and  it  was  adopted. 

Rev.  Jame8  a.  Hahrold,  of  Florida — oiFered  the 
following  preamble  and  resolution  : — 

Whereas,  The  order  for  daily  morning  and  evening 
prayer  is  obligatory  and  its  due  observance  would  tend 
to  increase  piuty  and  devotion,  and 

Whereas,  In  the  opinion  of  many,  attendance  at 
morning  and  evening  prayer  would  be  greatly  promoted 
and  encouraged  by  a  shorter  and  more  varied  service, — 

Resolved,  That  the  House  of  Bishops  be  requested  to 
propose  and  set  forth  for  morning  and  evening  prayer 
a  short  service  formed  alter  the  primitive  and  ancient 
Liturgies  which  may  be  allowed  for  use  on  other  days 
than  Sunday,  and  also  that  the  house  of  Bishops  should 
reverse  the  Sectionary  for  the  season  of  Lent. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight  : — I  would  hke  to  inquire  if  this  has 
not  been  acted  upon.  It  was  referred  to  the  Commit- 
tee on  Canons  and  the  Committee  on  Canons  reported 
that  it  was  inexpedient ;  and  the  committee  were  dis- 
charged. 

The  President  : — You  have  no  right  to  oifer  the 
resolution  after  it  has  been  acted  upon. 

Rev.  Dr.  Hakrold  : — I  propose  to  oiler  it  as  an  origi- 
nal resolution.  A  short  time  since  I  had  very  unex- 
pectedly the  honor  to  propose  to  the  House  a  somewhat 
similar  resolution  on  this  subject.  It  was  a  subject  that 
had  occupied  my  mind  and  attention  for  some  time  ;  it 
is  a  necessity  pressing  upon  me  ;  but  I  had  hoped  to 
prefer  my  modest  request  under  the  lead  of  some  other 
person  in  the  House  mor  competent  than  myself  to  intro- 
duce it.  Therefore,  I  introduced  it  first  by  way  of  an 
amendment  to  a  resolution  offered  by  a  gentleman  from 
New  Vork  as  to  additional  services.  At  the  suggestion 
of  the  chairman  I  was  compelled  to  assume  the  initiation 
by  introducing  a  resolution  which  I  did  not  intend  or 
expect  to ;  but  having  done  so  I  felt  that  I  owed  it  to 
myself  and  the  House  to  state  my  reasons  for  doing  so, 
and  to  ask  this  House  that  it  shall  not  be  tabled,  but 
that  it  may  go  to  the  House  of  Bishops  as  a  modest  re- 
quest for  what  I  am  sure  all  feel  is  desirable.  It  is 
supposed  that  we  have  passed  most  of  the  perils  which 
have  been  alluded  to  in  the  legislation  of  the  House. 
We  have  been  constantly  warned  about  the  dangers  and 
the  perils  before  this  House  in  its  legislative  action. 
Perhaps  they  have  all  passed  away.  The  provincial 
system  and  some  of  the  systems  which  were  not  passed 
have  been  laid  to  canonical  repose.  "Romanizing 
Germs"  have  not  even  sprouted,  and  the  cries  and 
meanings  which  have  been  for  so  long  a  time  Tyng- 
Tynging  in  our  ears  have  ceased  and  we  may  now  be 
said  to  stand  upon  safe  and  secure  ground  ;  and  I  can 
therefore  ask  the  House  to  second  my  request  for  an 
additional  service.  It  was  said  when  I  first  offered  the 
resolution  that  it  was  an  attempt  to    interfere  with  the 


established  order  as  laid  down  in  the  Prayer   Book.     I 
disclaim  any  such  intention.     1  profess  to  be  as  conserv- 
ative  as   any    man    in   this    House.     I  reverence  that 
Prayer  Book  as  much  as  any  man  can  reverence  it ;  and 
if  I  did  not  have  a  natural  reverence  for  that  order,  my 
respect  for  the  wisdom  and  the   opinions  of  those  who 
prepared  it  and  who  have  sustained  it  would  prevent  me 
from  intruding  anything   upon   the   attention   of  this 
House  which  would  seem  to  set  aside  that  order  in  any 
degree  whatever.     It   has  therefore  nothing  to  do  with 
the  established  order  of  the  Prayer  Book.  I,  with  many 
others  who,  I  hope,  will  support  me  in  this  movement, 
wish  for  relief     We  feel  the  order  of  public  prayer  to 
be  obligatory  ;  we  believe  it  will   tend  to  piety  and  de- 
votion in  the  membership  if  they  would  observe  this 
more  regularly  ;  and  we  also  feel  that  that  attendance 
is  not  given  as  it  ought  to  be  and  the  causes  are  alluded 
to  by   many  persons,  complaint  coming  up  constantly. 
There  is  scarcely  a  layman  or  clergyman  in  this  House 
who  has  not  heard  this   complaint  and  felt  the  force  of 
the  complaint  against  the  present  order,  and  who  would 
not    long   for    and    desire   some  relief  from  an  order 
which  does  to  many  seem  to  be  oppressive  and  at  times 
wearisome  ?  Mr.  Chairman,  I  know  there  is  a  great  deal 
of  conservatism  in  this  body,  and  I   pay   deference  and 
respect  to  it.     It  does  not  become  a   man  of  my  age, 
and  on  the  occasion  of  my  first  appearance  on  this  floor, 
to  attempt  to  set  that  aside  or  oppose  it  in  any  way  ;  but 
I  will  say  this,  that  if  any  of  those  gentlemen  so  bound 
up  in  conservatism  would  only  undertake  to  carry  out 
the  service  for  morning  prayer  in  the   tropical  regions 
where  I  live,  the  ice  of  his  conservatism  in  our   region 
would  soon  melt  into  the  genial  streams  of  progress. 
Is  there  any  necessity  for  this  ?  We  all  know  how  utter- 
ly impossible  it  is  to  command  a  full  and  regular  attend- 
ance at  morning  prayer  ;  and  if  I  am  to  take  the  opinion 
of  others  in  this  matter,  it  is  because  men  in  the  present 
age  under  the  present    social   circumstances  of  life  and 
business  relations  have  not  the  time  to  devoted  to  its  obj 
servance.  No  man  who  undertakes  the  servico  at  a  fair 
speed  can  accomplish  it  in  much  less  than  three  quar 
ters  of  an  hour  ;  and  men  of  the  world  cannot  give  the 
time  to  this  observance  ;  whereas  if  a  shorter  order  was 
given  them,  they  would  spare  the  time — they  would  be 
arrested  in  their  onward  march   from  day  to  day  to  de- 
vote some  few  moments  to  prayer  and  praise  m  God's 
service.     I  have  attended  morning  prayer  in   Trinity 
Church  ;  I  believe  there  are  one  or  two  churches  in  this 
city  [a  voice — eight  or  ten]  where  morning  prayer  is  duly 
offered.     On  several  occasions  I  have  been   there,  and 
the  only  persons  who  were  there  were  the  reader,  my- 
self, and  the  sexton,  while  at  the  same  time  there  were 
hundreds  upon  hundreds  tired,    weary,    anxious  spirits 
passing  by  that  door  and  who  have  not  the  time  nor 
inclination  under  the  present  circumstances  to  step  into 
the  House  of  God  and  offer  up  their  devotions.     Shall 
nothing  be  done  even  in  the  face  of  conservatism  to  try 


158 


and  arrest  this — to  try  to  catch  some  portion  of  the 
multitude  daily  passing  God's  House  '?  A  short  service 
often  minutes  would  be  sufficient.  I  contend  that  this 
request  can  be  granted  and  received  without  any  at- 
tempt to  interfere  with  the  established  order.  It  is  re- 
quiring the  House  of  Bishops  to  do  what  the  individual 
Bisliops  have  been  doing  all  the  time — preparing  prayers 
for  special  occasions. 

Rev.  Mr.CoRBETT: — IVlr.  President,  I   do  not  believe 
any  member  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  clerical  or  lay, 
does  too  much  praying.     1  move  the  resolution  be  laid 
upon  the  table.     [Voices — "  No,"   "  no."] 
The  motion  to  lay  upon  the  table  was  withdrawn. 
Rev.    Dr.    Peterkin,    of  Virginia: — I    should   like, 
though  with   a  good  deal   of  reluctance,   to  say  some- 
thing upon  this  resolution.     In  a  few  words,   I  wish  to 
say  that  while  I  differ  with  my  reverend   brother,  with 
great  reluctance,  I  do  not  lili;e  the  general  strain  of  our 
legislation  so  much  for  the  promotion  of  organic  life  of 
the  Church,  and  leaving  out  of  view  the  individual  life. 
There  must  be  individual  life,  as  the  Cliurch  is  an  aggre- 
gate of  individuals  ;  and  I  beg  to   call  attention  to  the 
fact  that  there   is  some  portion  of  our  service   which 
tends,    greatly,    to   promote  the  individual   life.     It  is, 
I  fear,  generally — I  think  1  may  express  the  fear,  gen- 
erally— certainly  very  largely,  nelgected  by  our  Chris- 
tian people.     We  have,  in  Virginia,  and  1  suppose  there 
may  be  found  copies   in  all    the  other  States,   an  order 
for  fiimily  prayer,  printed  one  hundred  and  thirty  years 
ago,  in  the  colony  of  Virginia.     We  have  still  the  order 
for  family  prayer ;  and,  with  the   exception  of  its  leav- 
ing out  the  royal  family  in  England,  it  isjust  that  form 
of  pra3'er  we  have  adopted  for  use  in  our  families.     I 
believe  that  order  of  prayer  was  proposed  by  Bishop 
Gibson,  London,  some  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  ao-o; 
and  he  urged  it   upon  his  parishioners,  at  Lambeth,  to 
use  that  prayer,  steadily,  at  home,  as  he  did  not  expect 
that  they  would  go  to  church,  day  after  day.     Our  fore- 
fathers printed  that  prayer,  for   our   use,  before   there 
was  a   Prayer-Book   adapted   to  the  case ;  long  before 
any  General  Convention — before  any  gathering  togeth- 
er of  our  people   in  any   such  assembly  as  this.     We 
must  have  individual  life ;  and  we,  especially,  who  live 
in  dioceses  and  territories  where  people  are  scattered 
abroad,  must  see  to  this  one  thing.     Woe  worth  the 
day,  if  we  omit,  as   so  many   of  our  communicants   I 
fear,  are  omitting,  these  family  devotions.     If  they  be 
properly  attended  to,  then  we  may  hope  that  the  indi- 
vidual life  will  be  fostered.     And  the  organic  life  of  the 
Church  will  be   such  as  it  should   be.     By  means  of 
these  family    prayers,  many  families  have   kept  alive  a 
spirit  of  devotion ;  and,    under   the  intiuence  of  such 
prayer,  remote  from  church,  and  with  very  slender  op- 
portunities, in  some  cases,  to  go  to  church,  yet,  by  the 
blessing  of  God,  have   been  cultured  such    men  as  the 
one  who  presented  the  Report  on  Christian  Education, 
the  other  day,  and  whose  remarks  were  listened  to  with 


SO  much  attention  by  this  House.  We  must  see  to  tliis 
particularly  ;  and  1  respectfully  suggest  that,  if  we  are 
going  to  legislate  further  in  this  direction,  certainly, 
some  resolution  might  be  becoming  fi-om  this  House,  as 
a  resolution  of  inquiry,  whether  the  members  of  our 
Church  live  in  the  exercise  of  family  worship,  which 
must,  after  all,  lie  at  the  foundation  of  any  true  worship 
in  our  order — gathering  together  in  the  Lord's  assem- 
blage. Because  I  am  unwilling  to  see  the  morning 
prayer  abreviated,  unless  according  to  Bishop  Hobart's 
suggestion,  I  am  compelled  to  vote  against  the  resolu- 
tion offered  by  my  brother  from  Florida. 

Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin  moved  that   the  resolution  be  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  Prayer-Book. 

Mr. : — It  seems  to  me  that  we  have  no 

right  to  reach  this  question  in  this  way.  You  have  a 
Prayer-Book  set  forth  by  authority.  All  the  changes 
in  that  Prayer-Book  are  to  be  made  in  a  special  way. 
Is  it  in  the  power  of  this  House  to  adopt  such  changes 
as  this,  so  radical  in  character,  in  this  way  ?  I  think 
it  will  be  contrary  to  the  constitution  of  this  Church 
to  adopt  that  resolution.  Here  is  a  resolution  request- 
ing the  House  of  Bishops  to  set  forth  a  service  that  is 
to  become  the  service  of  the  Church,  which  will  be  an 
order  set  forth  by  the  House  of  Bishops,  and  not  as  the 
constitution  I'equires.  Once  begin  this  thing,  and  with- 
out the  constitutional  protection,  all  sorts  of  changes 
may  be  made  in  the  service. 

Rev.  Dr.  Pierce; — I  wish'  to  make  one  remark  that 
applies  to  all  propositions  to  set  forth  shorter  services  : 
that  it  is  very  desirable  thattliere  should  be  more  adap- 
tability in  the  Prayer-Book.  We  should  be  able  to 
make  the  service  longer  or  shorter.  It  seems  to  me 
that  if  there  were  a  page  of  general  rubrics,  introducto- 
ry to  the  Prayer-Book,  giving,  in  certain  cases,  the 
right  of  lessening,  and  of  increasing  the  length  of  the 
service,  it  would  accomplish  all  that  is  desired  by  the 
movers  of  these  different  resolutions. 

Rev.  Dr.  Howe  : — The  second  period  of  the  eighth 
article  of  the  Constitution  says,  expressly,  that  no  alter- 
ation or  addition  shall  be  made  in  the  Book  of  Com- 
mon Prayer,  etc. 

This  is  a  proposition  not  merely  to  alter,  but  to  add 
to,  nor  merely  to  add  to,  but  to  make  a  substitute  for 
the  Book  of  Common  Prayer.  It  proposes  to  refer  the 
thing,  not  to  the  Convention,  but  to  the  Bishops  only. 
It  proposes  that  it  shall  be  done  without  restriction ; 
that  it  shall  lie  over  three  years.  Unacquainted,  as  I 
am,  with  the  proceedings  of  parliamentary  bodies,  I  ask 
whether  a  proposition,  so  in  the  teeth  of  the  fundamen- 
tal law,  can  be  in  order  ? 

The  President  : — I  should  dislike  to  pass  upon  that 
question.     The  House  had  better  pass  upon  it. 

A  vote  was  then  taken  upon  the  question  of  reference 
to  the  Committee  on  Prayer-Book,  which  was  lost. 
The  question  then  recurred  upon  the  resolution. 
Rev.   Dr.  Goodwin  : — I    moved  that  the    resolution 


159 


should  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Prayer- 
Book,  not  desiring  to  say  anything  on  the  subject,  if  it 
were  referred.  But  since  it  has  not  been  referred  to 
the  committee,  I  do  desire  to  say  something  before  the 
question  is  taken.  I  think,  Mr.  President,  that  the  con- 
stitutional objection  is  unquestionably  well  taken  ;  for, 
it  will  be  observed,  that  the  resolution  opens  with  the 
statement,  "  Whereas  morning  and  evening  prayer  is 
obligatory."  It  is  admitted  that  it  is  obligatory,  not 
only  for  Sunday,  but  every  day.  We  start  with  the  ad- 
mission that  the  morning  and  evening  praj'ers  are  obli- 
gatory. So  that  the  proposition  to  refer  to  the  Bishops 
starts  with  the  admi.ssion  that  it  is  unconstitutional. 

Rev.  Mr.  Harrold  : — Would  not  the  same  objection 
apply  to  services  which  are  now  put  forth  by  the 
Bishops  ? 

Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin  : — I  do  not  know  any  such  services 
that  would  be  constitutional.  The  resolution  admits 
that  the  Morning  Prayer  is  obligatory.  No  Bishop  of 
this  Church  can  give  me  liberty  to  perform  a  ditfeient 
service.  A  substitution  for  that  which  is  now  admitted 
to  be  obligatory  is  asked  for.  Besides,  Mr.  President, 
I  should  object,  with  all  my  heart,  even  if  we  asked  the 
Bishops  to  do  something,  to  instruct  thein  exactly  what 
to  do.  This  resolution  not  only  asks  them  to  set  forth 
something,  but  something  of  a  certain  sort  or  cut.  If 
we  want  them  to  set  forth  a  service,  let  us  say  it  in  the 
simplest  words.  I  have  a  still  farther  objection.  I  am 
satisfied  with  the  Prayer-Book  as  it  is.  Of  course  I 
have  no  objection  to  some  slight  modification  of  punctu- 
ation, or  anything  of  that  sort.  Any  thing  of  that  kind 
is  an  improvement.  I  am,  for  one,  opposed  to  any 
change.  I  stand  on  that  ground.  [Applause.]  If  gen- 
tlemen, on  one  side,  are  to  bring  forward  their  changes 
gentlemen  on  the  other  side  would  bring  forward  theirs, 
and  I  would  have,  befoi'e  Thursday  morning,  my  pocket 
full  of  applications  and  memorials  for  changes  in  the 
Prayer-Book.  I  do  not  want  to  bring  any  of  them.  I 
stand  to  the  Prayer-Book  as  it  is. 

The  vote  being  taken,  the  resolution  was  lost. 
Rev.  Dr.  Paddock  presented    tlie  following  report 
from  tiie  Committee  on  Canons : 

The  Committee  on  Canons,  to  whom  were  referred  sundry 
memorials  touching  greater  uniformity  in  the  conduct  of  pub- 
lic worship,  and  in  the  administration  of  the  Rites  and  Sac- 
raments of  the  Chureh,  would  respectfully  report  the  follow- 
ing preamble  and  resolutions,  which  they  recommend  for 
adoption  : 

WiiEKEAS,  This  Church  seeks  to  keep  the  happy  mean  be- 
tween too  much  stiffne.ss  in  refusing  and  too  much  easiness 
in  admitting  variations  in  things  once  advisedly  established  ; 
and.liold.s  that  with  regard  to  things  in  tlieir  own  nature  imlif- 
feront  and  alterable,  and  so  acknowledged,  it  is  Imt  reason- 
able that  upon  weighty  and  important  considerations,  ac- 
cording to  the  various  exigencies  of  times  and  occasions, 
such  changes  and  alterations  should  be  made  therein  as  to 
those  who  are  in  places  of  authority  shall  from  time  to  lime 
seem  cither  necessary  or  expedient;  her  aim  being  to  do 
that  which,  according  to  her  best  understanding  may  most 
tend  to  tlie  preservation  of  peace  and  unity  in  the  Church, 
the  procuring  of  reverence,  and   the  exciting  of  piety  and 


devotion  in  tlie  worship  of  Uoil ;  and,  tinally,  the  cutting 
off  occasion  from  them  that  seek  occasion,  of  cavil  against 
the  Church  and  her  Liturgy;  and 

Whereas,  It  has  been  represented  to  this  House  by  di- 
vers memorials  numerously  signed  by  Presbyters  and  Lay- 
men of  this  t'liurch,  that  the  introduction,  by  certain  other 
ministers,  of  vestments,  cercniouii'S,  practircs,  ajid  orna- 
ments of  churches,  not  heretofore  gener.ally  known  in  the 
public  worship  of  this  Church,  is  marring  her  good  order 
and  harmony,  wounding  tlie  consciences  of  many  of  her 
true  and  loyal  cliildren,  -candalizing  and  repching  many 
without  her  fold,  deferring  hopes  of  Christian  unity,  and 
im])eTiling  portions  of  the  faith  ;  and 

Whereas,  It  has  also  been  represented  by  memorials,  like- 
wise signed,  that  the  neglect  and  disuse,  by  certain  of  her 
ministers,  of  vestments,  usages,  and  in  some  instances,  ru- 
brics, well  established  and  generally  observed  in  this  ('-iuirch, 
are  marring  her  order  and  beauty,  disturbing  lier  uniformity 
and  encouraging  individual  lawdcssness  and  self-will;  there- 
fore, be  it 

Resolved,  The  House  of  Bi.shops  concurring,  that,  with 
devout  acknowledgment  of  that  gracious  Presence  and  as- 
sistance of  her  Divine  ilaster  wliieh  has  been  so  signally 
vouchsafed  to  this  Church  at  many  a  crisis  more  perilous 
than  the  present,  enabling  her,  in  the  midst  of  aggressions 
from  without  and  innumerable  short-comings  and  extrava- 
gances from  within,  to  maintain  the  integrity  of  her  doc- 
trine and  the  beauty,  decency,  and  dignity  ot  her  wor.ship, 
this  Convention  attributes  this  happy  result  in  a  great  meas- 
ure, under  God,  to  that  spirit  of  moderation  which  has  hith- 
erto guided  the  councils  of  this  Church,  and  ndiicb  has  ren- 
dered her  averse  to  all  rcstrictiuiis  of  the  liberty  of  her 
children  in  things  indifferent  or  unessential,  so  long  as  unity 
can  be  maintained  and  spiritual  edification  promoted  in  any 
other  way.  It  is  the  sense  of  this  Convention,  therefore, 
that  the  enactment  of  any  canon  on  the  subject  of  the  rit- 
ual would  be  unwise  and  inexpedient  at  the  present  time. 
But  it  is  none  the  less  the  sense  of  this  Convention  that  the 
uoutinued  maintenance  of  the  decency  and  order  as  well 
as  of  the  peace  and  h.armony  which,  by  God's  blessing,  have 
always  characterized  this  Church  ;  the  avoidance  of  the 
dangers  of  irreverence  and  lawlessness  on  the  one  hand,  and 
extravagance  and  superstition  on  the  other  ;  the  preservation 
of  doctrine  from  peril  of  intentional  or  unintentional  change, 
and  a  due  regard  to  the  scriptural  canon  of  walking  wise- 
ly toward  them  which  are  without,  require  from  all  iniuis- 
t'ei's  of  this  Church,  celebrating  Divine  service  in  churches  or 
other  established  places  of  jjublic  worship,  a  conscientious 
and  so  far  as  may  be,  steadfast  adherence  to  such  vest- 
ments, ceremonies,  practices,  and  ornaments,  as,  Ijy  reason 
of  long-continued  use  or  by  autliority,  are  recognized  as 
properly  belonging  to  this  Church,  avoiding  errors  either 
f)y  excess  or  by  defect.  And,  further,  that  in  all  matters 
doubtful,  for  the  avoidance  of  un.seemly  disputes  and  con- 
tradictory practices,  which  tend  neither  to  good  name  nor 
to  godliness,  reference  should  l)e  made  to  the'Oi-dinary,  and 
no  change  should  be  made  against  the  godly  counsel  and 
judgment  of  the  Bishop. 

Bv  order  of  the  Committee, 

WILLIAM  COOPER  MEAD, 

Chairman. 
Church  ok  thk  Tran^figcratio.n,  | 

New    York,  October  2i;,  ISOS.     J 

The  reading  of  the  last  resolution  above  reported  was 
greeted  with  applause. 

The  PitKSiDENT. — I  hope  the  custom  will  not  be  in- 
troduced into  this  Convention  of  applause  or  disapproba- 
tion of  any  thing  that  is  offered  here.  We  have  gone 
through  more  than  hall'  a  ceiittiry  without  any  such 
thing,  and  it  would  be  an  evil  omen  to  have  it  introduced 
now.     I  beg  that  all  such  tokens  will  be  withheld. 

Rev.  Dr.  IIaight. — I  move  that  the  report  be  made 
the  order  of  the  day  at  twelve  o'clock  to-morrow. 


160 


Rev.  Dr.  Howe. — Before  that  motion  is  put,  njay  I 
say  that  a  minority  of  the  committee  concur  with  the  re- 
port which  has  been  presented  in  so  far  as  it  expresses 
an  inilisposition  to  have  any  canon  enacted  touching  this 
business  at  this  time.  Having  felt  that  resolutions,  if 
any  be  passed  by  this  House,  ought  to  be  of  a  more  dis- 
tinct and  explicit  character,  the  minority  of  the  commit- 
tee have  reported  preambles  and  resolutions,  which  they 
ask  leave  to  offer. 

VIEWS  OF  THE  MINORITY  OF  THE  CCIMMITTKE. 

The  undersigned,  a  minority  of  the  Coinniitte  ou  Canons, 
beg  leave  to  otter  the  following  report: 

Tills  Convention  cannot  ignore  the  fact  that  there  is  at  the 
present  time  great  agitation  among  members  of  our  Commu- 
nion on  the  subject  of  ritual:  in  some  places  reproach  being  iu- 
cui-red  by  the  omission  of  proprieties  of  apparel  and  deport- 
ment in  conducting  public  worship,  which  the  established 
usage  of  our  Church  has  sanctioned;  aud  in  others  great 
alarm  occasioned  liy  vestments  and  chancel  arrangements 
and  ornaments,  practices  heretofore  unknown  among  us, 
and  characteristic  in  the  regard  of  ilie  great  body  of  our 
people  of  a  foreign  Communion.  Were  this  Convention 
disposed  to  close  its  eyes  upon  these  facts,  the  voluminous 
memorials  that  overwhelm  its  table  and  invite  its  attention, 
especially  to  the  last-named  evil,  would  forbid  it.  The  un- 
dersigned, in  considering  the  subject,  have  re.ahzed  daily, 
while  they  have  given  it  more  protracted  deliberation,  that 
it  is  beset  with  difficulties,  particularly  as  a  matter  for  leg- 
islative action.  Canon  law,  unless  it  be  specific  to  the  last 
degree,  it  is  easy  for  the  evil-disposed  to  evade;  and  any 
enactments  upon  such  topics  would,  in  the  present  state  of 
things,  in  their  judgment,  be  premature,  probably  insuffi- 
cieut,  and  without  precedent  in  our  existing  legislation. 
True  sons  of  the  Church  will  be  loyal  to  the  spirit  of  the 
Church.  And  this  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  having 
here  an  independent  being,  has  set  forth  its  own  standards 
aud  formulas  of  Doctrine,  its  pure  aud  harmonious  Liturgy, 
and  adopted  and  maintained,  partly  by  rule  and  partly  by 
usage,  its  common  and  recognized  manner  of  worship.  In 
our  Thirty-fourth  Article  of  Religion  it  is  declared  that  this 
Church,  in  common  with  branches  in  other  lands  of  tlie  One 
Chureh  Catholic,  hath  power,  as  necessity  shall  arise,  to 
change  its  ceremonies.  But  this  power  it  denies  to  an  in- 
dividual member,  and  pronounces  that  whosoever,  of  his 
own  private  judgment,  openly  breaks  the  traditions  and 
ceremonies  of  the  Church,  winch,  not  being  contrary  to 
God's  Word,  have  been  ordained  and  approved  by  common 
authority,  ought  to  be  rebuked  openly. 

And  with  whom  rests  the  official  right  and  duty  to  ad- 
minister such  rebuke— privately,  if  so  it  may  be  effectual, 
pubhcly,  if  that  will  not  avail — if  it  be  not  with  him  who  is 
an  overseer  in  the  House  of  God  ? 

It  is  a  time  when,  amidst  so  much  of  disquietude  and  di.s- 
trust  within,  and  so  much  of  change  and  disaster  without, 
the  Church  may  well  look  to  her  Chief  Pastors  to  be  more 
than  usually  vigilant,  that  they  may  discourage  and  repress 
all  eccentricities  in  worship  and  ceremony,  and  admonish 
the  negligent  to  be  decorous  and  orderly.  It  is  a  time, 
when  she  may  well  enjoin  her  clergy  to  abide  in  the  old 
paths,  to  remember  that  they  are  under  vows  to  obey  the 
godly  admonitions  of  their  Bishops,  aud  to  save  their  flocks 
from  internal  discord  over  novelties  of  ceremonial,  when 
they  should  be  "striving  together  for  the  faith  of  the  Gos- 
pel." It  is  a  time  when  it  becomes  the  faithful  Laity  to  aid 
and  encourage  their  Pastors  in  doing  ^'ood,  so  to  supersede 
dreamy  fancies  by  practical  activity.  There  is  enough  to  be 
done  for  the  reclaim  of  man  and  for  the  glory  of  Christ,  to 
postpone  the  agitation  of  questions,  like  those  in  the  prim- 
itive age,  which  the  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles  pronounced  un- 
profitable and  vain,  gendering  strife. 

Never,  it  wouldj  seem,  has  it  fallen  to  the  lot  of  this 
Church  to  enjoy  such  an  opportunity  for  drawinj;  to  herself, 
if  not  in  person  yet  in  spirit,  the  good  of  ever\  naiuc, 
among  whom  she  stands   as  a  city  set  upon   a  hill.     But, 


only  by  maintaining  her  historic  stability,  her  calm  modera- 
tion, her  simple  yet  beautiful  worship,  can  she  make  her 
opportunity  available.  It  will  lie  iu  vain  for  us  to  hold  the 
hand,  to  invite  the  followers  of  Wesley  and  other  Christian 
bodies  to  unity  in  the  (jlmrch  of  Christ,  if,  meanwhile,  we 
shall  appear  to  them  rumoviu?  from  the  old  fovnidations, 
and  tending  to  assimilation  with  a  Comiuuuion  from  which 
they  all  recoil. 

To  give  such  expression  as  the  exigency  of  the  time 
seems  to  require  to  the  common  sentiments  of  the  Church 
— to  declare  it  loyal  to  the  doctrine,  polity,  worship,  tradi- 
tions, and  ceremonies  which  have  been  recognized  as  its 
established  order  through  the  three  gcneratious  of  its  na- 
tional being — to  utter  the  aversion  with  which  it  regards  all 
assumption  of  private  license  to  depart  from  that  order, 
whether  by  defect  or  excess,  and  in  omission  to  seek  or 
failure  to  respect  Ecclesiastical  counsel  or  authority,  the 
undersigned  recommend  that  this  House — a  representative 
body,  speaking  for  the  Clergy  and  Laity  of  this  Church 
throughout  the  land — declares  itself  in  the  following  resolu- 
tion.s,  and  asks  the  concurrence  of  our  Right  Reverend 
Pathers,  the  House  of  Bishops:  Trusting  that  this  may 
prove  instrumental  iu  promoting  such  degree  of  uniformity 
in  the  pubhc  worship  of  our  churches  as  is  desirable  for 
edification  and  harmony,  and  consistent  with  the  Catholic 
claims  of  the  Body  of  Christ  to  which  we  belong.  The 
L-onservatism  which  has  always  distinguished  our  branch  of 
the  Church,  and  which  some  hot  spirits  esteem  little  better 
than  stagnation,  will,  we  trust,  under  the  Divine  blessing, 
save  us  now  as  heretofore  from  being  carried  to  any  ex- 
treme or  sivei'vcd  from  our  propriety  liy  the  fantasies  of  in- 
dividual men  ;  so  that  this  Church  may  contiunc  to  be  the 
refuge  of  those  who  seek  stability  of  faith  without  strait- 
ne.ss,  beauty  of  worship  without  sensuousuess,  and  order  of 
government  without  despotism. 

The  resolutions  submitted  for  your  approval  are  as  fol- 
lows : 

Whereas,  It  has  heretofore  been  one  of  the  peculiar 
characteristics  and  attractions  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  that  its  worship  and  the  mode  of  conducting  it 
have  been  in  all  places  substantially  alike ;  so  that  every 
child  of  the  Churcli,  in  any  one  of  her  sanctuaries,  found  a 
familiar  spiritual  home  ;   and 

WiiEi:KA£j,  It  has  been  especially  distinctive  of  this 
Church,  that  while  it  has  avoided  the  baldness  of  most  of 
the  modes  of  Protestant  worsliip,  it  has  still  more  decidedly 
put  away  the  many-colored  vestments,  excessive  ceremonial 
and  false  symbolism  of  a  foreign  church  with  which  it  is 
not  in  communion  ;  therefore 

1.  RcRohed,  As  the  sense  of  this  Convention — the  House 
of  Bi.shops  concurring — that  the  maintenance  of  our  wonted 
uniformity  and  siiuplieity  in  worship  is  exceedingly  desira- 
ble, to  secure  this  Church  frotu  the  insidious  introduction 
of  unsound  doctrine,  from  the  disturbance  of  the  peace  and 
comfort  of  its  worshippers,  and  from  exposure  to  evil  report 
among  them  who  are  without. 

2.  Resolved,  That  while  there  is  no  absolute  directory  in 
the  Canons  or  Rubrics  of  the  Church,  specifying  all  official 
vestments  and  practices,  and  all  Ecclesiastical  ornaments 
which  may  be  fitly  u.sed  therein,  yet  there  is  the  indication 
of  great  simplicity ;  and  the  traditional  usages  of  the 
Church  in  this  behalf,  from  the  date  of  its  organization  here 
to  the  present  period,  are  in  conforiuity  therewith,  and 
have,  in  the  hearts  and  miuds  of  the  great  body  of  its  loyal 
membcr.s,  the  force  of  law. 

3.  Resolved,  That  this  Convention  affectionately  urges 
upon  all  who  have  to  do  with  the  ordering  of  the  appoint- 
ments of  public  worship,  that  they  abide  by  the  traditions 
and  ceremonies  of  this  American  Church  ;  that  none  other 
than  the  "  clerical  habits"  known  to  our  fathers,  and  refer- 
red to  by  the  House  of  Bishops  at  the  General  Convention 
of  1814,  as  appropriate  to  ministers  ofKciating  in  the  Con- 
gregation, "  bands,  gowns,  and  surjiliucs,"  with  their  custo 
mary  appendages,  cassocks  aud  black  stoics,  be  provided, 
and  that  no  strange  ornaments  of  the  sacred  places,  condu- 
cive to  vain  show  or  superstition,  be  introduced. 


161 


4.  Rcst'/neil,  That,  in  the  judf,'iiieiit  of  this  Convention — 
the  House  of  Bishop.s  coni'iiiTinj; — the  huniinf^  of  h^lits  in 
the  order  for  the  Holy  Communion,  the  bnrninp;  of  incense, 
reverences  to  the  holy  table,  or  to  the  elements  tliereon, 
the  elevation  of  the  elements,  inaliinf;  tlie  sign  of  tlic  cross 
fexeept  when  prescribed  in  the  Rubric)  in  and  during;  di- 
vine service  or  tlie  celebration  of  the  IjOrd's  Supper,  are  in- 
novations on  our  mode  of  conducting  public  worship,  oftend 
against  the  common  order  of  the  Church,  and  wound  the 
consciences  of  many  of  its  true  and  loving  uieudiers. 

5.  Resolvd,  That  this  Convention  earnestly  expresses  its 
disapproval  of  the  omission  of  any  of  those  proprieties  of 
apparel  and  demeanor,  wdien  ministering  in  the  congrega- 
tion, which  either  rule  or  general  usage  has  made  distinctive 
of  our  worship,  and  counneiids  all  who,  being  in  holy  or- 
ders, would  deviate  on  the  right  hand  or  on  the  left,  from 
the  common  order  of  the  Church's  worshi]),  to  seek  first  the 
counsel  of  their  Bishops,  and  submit  themselves  to  their 
godly  judgments. 

(Signed)  M.  A.  DE  WOLFE  HOWE, 

JOHN  N.  CONTNGHAM. 

New  York,  Oct.  26,  1SG8. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight. — I  renew  my  resolution— that  this 
be  made  the  order  of  the  day  for  to-morrow  at  twelve 
o'clock.     This  motion  was  agreed  to. 

Messages  from  the  House  of  Bishops,  Nos.  46  to  49  in- 
clusive, were  received. 

Governor  Fish,  of  New  York,  offered  the  following 
resolution: 

Resoloeil,  That  from  and  after  this  time  no  new  suh- 
ject  be  entertained  by  the  House  or  committed  to  any 
committee.     Agreed  to. 

The  chairman  of  the  Special  Committee,  to  whom 
was  referred  the  communication  of  the  Registrar  of  the 
General  Convention,  .said:  A  communication  from  the 
Registrar  was  referred  to  the  Special  Committee  having 
in  charge  the  memorials  from  the  different  dioceses 
concerning  Bishop  Burgess's  manuscript,  the  subject  of 
which  communication  was  to  represent  that  the  resolution 
passed  by  the  Convention  creating  a  permanent  chair- 
man was,  in  his  judgment,  in  conflict  with  a  canou.  The 
House  of  Bishops,  by  substituting  for  the  words  "pro- 
vided tor"  the  word  "regulated,"  satisfied  the  Registrar, 
and  the  committee  beg  leave  respectfully  to  offer  the  fol- 
lowing resolution: 

Resolved,  That  the  object  of  the  communication  having 
been  attamcd,  the  Registrar  be  permitted  to  withdraw 
the  same. 

Which  was  adopted. 

On  motion  of  the  chairman  of  the  committee  the  Sec- 
retary was  directed  to  strike  from  the  records  every  thing 
relating  to  the  communication,  including  this  motion. 

Rev.  Dr.  Littlejohn. — I  move,  sir,  that  in  view  of 
th«  great  importance  of  the  two  reports — the  reports  of 
the  majority  and  of  the  minority — submitted  this  after- 
noon by  the  Committee  on  Canons,  that  these  documents 
be  printed  for  the  use  of  the  House  to-morrow,  as  this 
subject  has  been  made  the  order  of  the  day  for  twelve 
o'clock  to-morrow.  It  has  been  suggested  that  members 
might  rely  upon  the  ordinary  newspaper  reports;  but  I 
am  afraid  these  will  not  be  sulliciently  accurate  for  our 
purpose.  The  omission  of  a  single  adjective  or  qualify- 
ing phrase  would  be  of  very  material  consequence  in 

21 


the  consideration  of  this  subject.  1  presume  that  both 
the  majority  and  the  minority  of  this  Committee  on 
Canons  have  very  carefully  weighed  every  expression 
that  has  been  used  in  their  respective  reports.  There- 
fore I  repeat  that  it  is  of  material  consequence  to  the 
proper  consideration  of  the  reports  that  they  be  pre- 
sented to  the  House  in  printed  form.  I  will  modify  my 
motion  so  far  as  that  the  resolutions  and  preambles  only 
be  printed. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight. — There  should  be  a  special  com- 
mittee to  see  to  the  printing.  * 

Rev.  Dr.  Little.iohn. — I  move  that  the  Committee 
on  Canons  be  that  committee. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight. — I  beg  pardon.     [Laughter.] 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead. — I  move  that  Rev.  Dr.  Littlejohn  be 
a  committee'  to  get  these  reports  printed  by  twelve  o'clock 
to  morrow. 

Rev.  Dr.  Little.john. — I  would  bring  again  to  the 
notice  of  this  House  that  this  question  interests  the  out- 
side public  more  than  any  other  which  has  been  before 
this  House  since  the  beginning  of  its  session.  I  must  in- 
sist that  the  printing  of  these  documents  shall  be  under 
the  care  and  supervision  of  the  committee  who  have  re- 
ported them  to  this  House.  There  has  been  nothing  in 
connection  with  the  business  of  the  House  that  is  per- 
haps of  so  wide-spread  interest  as  this  subject. 

Rev.  Dr.  Andrews  seconded  the  resolution,  and 
hoped  that  it  would  include  the  whole  report. 

Rev.  Dr.  Littlejohn. — I  am  authorized  to  say  that 
a  very  distinguished  member  of  this  House  fRev.  Dr. 
Haight],  well  known  lor  his  industry  and  business  talent 
in  connection  with  matters  of  this  character,  will  take 
the  printing  of  this  matter  in  charge  himself 

Rev.  Dr.  Paddock. — T  desired  very  much  that  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Littlejohn  would  include  in  his  motion  the 
printing  of  the  whole  reports.  There  are  some  mem- 
bers of  the  committee  who  have  labored  for  hours  both 
in  sub-committees  and  in  the  general  committee  in  order 
to  draw  up  those  documents.  Before  the  general  com- 
mittee there  have  been  hours  spent  in  the  di.scussion  of 
particular  expressions.  And  it  seems  to  me  that  to  take 
one-half  the  documents,  when,  according  to  the  inten- 
tion, the  whole  document  hangs  together,  is  liable  to  lead 
this  House  into  error. 

On  motion  it  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Can- 
ons to  have  both  reports  printed. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead  offered  the  following  resolution: 
:  .  Resolved,  That  the  House  of  Bishops  be  and  hereby 
is  respectfully  requested  to  take  such  steps  as  in  their 
wisdom  may  be  thought  best,  not  only  for  promoting 
more  intimate  friendly  relations,  and  a  better  mutual 
knowledge  of  each  other  between  our  own  and  the  ori- 
ental friendly  communion  (the  lUisso-Greek  Church), 
but  especially  for  providing  for  the  spiritual  wants  of 
our  people  who  may  emigrate  to  the  territory  of  Alaska, 
with  due  regard  to  the  rights  of  the  Russian  Church. 

Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin  moved  to  amend  by  striking  out 
from  the  words  "not  only"  to  the  word  "especially." 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Welsh  the  further  consideration  of 


i(;2 


the  resolution  was  postponed  until  after  the  report  from 
the  Russo-Greek  Committee. 

The  resolution  with  regard  to  vestments  was  offered 
and  withdrawn. 

The  House  then  adjourned  to  to-morrow,  half-past 
nine. 

EIGHTEENTH    DAY's    PROCEEDINGS. 

TUE.SIIAT,  Oct.  27,   1868. 

Morning  Prayer  was  said  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  William  Shel- 
ton  of  Western  New  York  and  the  Rev.  William  S.  Child 
of  Rhode  Island. 

The  Benediction  was  pronoimced  by  Bishop  Odenheimer. 

The  Journal  of  yesterday's  proceedings  was  read  and  ap- 
proved. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight — submitted  report  No.  ."?S  from  the 
Committee  on  Canon.s  with  reference  to  Message  No.  34 
from  the  House  of  Bishops,  proposing  an  amendment  in 
Clause  2,  Section  3,  Canon  5,  Title  S,  "of  Congregations  in 
Foreign  Lands,"  aud  reported  for  adoption  a  resolution  of 
non-concurrence  with  the  action  of  the  House  of  Bishops. 
Adopted. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haigut — presented  report  No.  :U  from  the 
Committee  on  Canons  with  reference  to  c  ertaiu  resolution 
and  memorials,  and  reported  several  resolutions:  (1.)  That 
it  is  not  expedient  to  change  the  title  of  this  House  from 
that  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  to  that  of  Deputies;  (2.) 
That  it  is  not  expedient  to  grant  the  prayer  of  the  memo- 
rialists who  desire  that  any  minister  may  omit  from  the  ser- 
vices such  expressions  as  he  conscientiously  believes  to  be 
contrary  to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  provided  he  shall  have  first 
specified  to  the  Bishop  what  such  words  and  expressions 
are ;  for  the  reason  that  it  would  destroy  uniformity  in  the 
worship  of  this  Church  and  deprive  our  congregations  of 
the  right  to  enjoy  an  unmutilated  liturgy ;  (3.)  That  it  is 
not  expedient  to  grant  the  prayers  of  the  memorialists  for 
an  amendment  of  Canon  5,  Section  (3,  Title  1,  to  confer  on 
some  competent  tribunal  the  authority  to  dispense  in  their 
discretion  with  the  Hmitation  of  time  in  behalf  of  the  class 
of  minister  therein  described  with  an  amendment  of  said 
canon  proposed  in  the  last  General  Convention  on  page  97. 

The  resolutions  reported  by  the  committee  were  adopted. 

Rev.  Dr.  Howe,  of  the  Committee  on  Canons — submitted 
a  report  with  reference  to  the  petition  asking  that  a  license 
be  given  by  this  General  Convention  for  the  use  of  a  col- 
lection of  hymns  entitled  "Hymns  Ancient  and  Modern," 
and  reported  that  in  their  judgment  there  is  nothing  in  the 
constitution  and  canons  of  tlie  Church  to  forbid  such  ac- 
ion  ;  and  the  committee  reported  the  following  resolutions  : 

Resolved,  the  House  of  Bishops  concurring,  That  it  be 
aud  is  hereby  declared  lawful  until  a  revisal  and  enlarge- 
ment of  t!ie  collection  of  hymns  now  set  Ibrth  for  use  in 
this  Church  shall  be  made  and  duly  authorized,  tliat  in  any 
congregation  thereof  in  addition  to  those  already  allowed, 
hymns  from  tlfe  volume  entitled  "  Hynnis  for  Ciiurch  and 
Home,"  or  from  that  lentitled  "  Hymns  Ancient  and  Mod- 
ern," he  sung,  the  Bishop  of  Ihe  diocese  in  wliich  sucli  con- 
gregation exi.sts  consenting. 

Resolved,  the  House  of  Bishops  concurring,  That  it  be 
referred  to  a  joint  conmnttee  consisting  of  three  members 
of  this  House  (two  clergymen  and  one  layman)  and-  a  like 
number  of  Bishops  to  he  appointed  by  tlie  House  of 
Bishops,  to  take  into  considerfttioii  the  psahns  in  metre  and 


the  hymns  authorized  to  be  used  in  the  public  worship  of 
this  Church,  with  instructions  to  report  to  the  next  General 
Convention  such  alterations  and  additions  as  they  may 
think  expedient. 

Rev.  Dr.  Howe  then  moved  the  adoption  of  the  first 
resolution. 

Mr.  Welsh — wished  to  know  whether  there  were  any 
hymns  for  children  in  the  Hymns  for  Church  and  Home ; 
to  which  Dr.  Howe  replied  that  there  was  an  abundance  of 
them  ;  and  Mr.  Welsh  then  seconded  the  motion. 

Rev.  Dr.  Pierce  : — I  move  that  the  last  clause  be  stricken 
out — "the  Bishop  of  the  diocese  in  which  such  congrega- 
tion exists  consenting."  If  we  are  going  to  have  any  lib- 
erty at  all  in  this  matter  it  should  be  placed  in  the  hands 
of  him  who  needs  it.  This  matter  of  having  the  use  of 
different  hymns  according  to  the  whims  of  a  Bishop,  is  go- 
ing to  introduce  great  differences  in  the  service. 

Debate  arising  upon  the  resolution,  according  to  the  rules, 
it  was  laid  upon  the  table. 

Rev.  Dr.  GoouwiN — inquired  whether  the  committee  had 
examined  these  two  books  of  hynnis.  There  might  be 
hymns  in  either  of  those  collections  to  which  he  might 
earnestly  object;  and  he  would  not  be  ready  to  vote  that 
every  clergyman  should  be  permitted  to  select  hymns 
whencesoever  he  might  derive  them ;  but  if  particular 
books  were  selected,  and  the  comnuttee  had  personally  ex- 
amined them  and  they  recommended  those  hymns,  he 
would  have  something  to  .act  upon. 

Rev.  Dr.  Pitkin — said  that  it  was  well  known  that  these 
two  books  were  in  extensive  use  in  England. 

Rev.  Dr.  Howe — then  moved  the  adoption  of  the  second 
resolution  ;  which  was  adopted. 

Rev.  Dr.  R.  A.  Hallam,  of  the  Committee  on  the  State 
of  the  Church — submitted  a  report  with  the  joint  resolu- 
tion instructing  the  Committee  on  Canons  to  consider  and 
report  upon  the  expediency  of  amending  Canon  14,  Title 
first;  and  also  a  resolution  declaring  inexpedient  any  action 
with  reference  to  registration  of  persons  baptised  or  con- 
firmed persons  in  the  parishes;  wdiich  two  resolutions  were 
adopted. 

Messages  No.  48,  49,  .50  were  received  from  the  House  of 
Bishops.  The  House  adopted  three  resolutions  contained 
in  Message  No.  48,  appointing  a  joint  committee  to  prepare 
and  report  to  the  next  General  Convention  a  version  of  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer  in  the  German  language,  and  ap- 
pointing another  committee  to  prepare  a  version  of  the 
same  in  the  French  language,  and  another  committee  to 
prepare  a  version  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  in  the 
Swedish  language. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mahan — presented  the  report  of  the  Russo- 
Greek  Committee. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Welsh,  the  resolutions  submitted' by 
the  Russo-Greek  Conmnttee  were  adopted. 

On  motion  of  Rev.  Dr.  Mahan,  Rev.  Mr.  Fulton  of  Geor- 
gia was  substituted  in  the  place  of  Rev.  Dr.  Young,  now 
Bishop  of  Florida,  in  the  Russo-Greek  Committee. 

Rev.  Dr.  Littlejohn,  from  the  Comnuttee  on  the  Domes- 
tie  and  Foreign  Missionary  Society — reported  that  a  com- 
mittee had  cxandned  with  care  the  statement  of  their  pro- 
ceedings for  the  past  three  years  presented  to  this  House 
by  the   Board  of  Missions,  and   that  the   statement  shows 


163 


that  while  the  receipts  for  the  domestic  worli  have  increased 
from  §75,UUU  in  1865  to  $117,00(1  in  1868,  yet,  owing  to 
the  great  extension  of  the  worli,  a  debt  of  nearly  ^25,000 
must  be  carried  over  to  the  ensuing  year ;  and  that  the 
foreign  department  was  in  arrears  some  ^20,0i)();  thus 
making  an  aggregate  indebtedness  in  both  departments  not 
far  from  $45,ii(i0.  The  committee  reported  for  adoption 
certain  resolutions,  which  were  adopted. 

On  motion  of  Rev.  Dr.  Uaight,  the  mcs.sage  from  the 
House  of  Bishops  (concerning  the  appointment  of  a  joint 
committee  to  consider  the  present  state  of  Theological  edu- 
cation of  this  Church,  and  the  means  for  its  facilitation  and 
improvement,  and  report  thereon  at  the  next  (leneral  Con- 
vention, and  also  to  confer  with  the  House  of  Bishops  on 
the  revision  of  the  course  of  study),  was  concurred  in. 

On  motion  of  Rev.  Dr.  Howe,  the  House  proceeded  to 
consider  the  first  resolution  [given  above]  reported  by  the 
Committee  on  Canons  concerning  the  hymuody. 

The  first  question  thereon  was  the  motion  to  strike  out 
the  clause  requiring  the  consent  of  the  Bishop. 

Rev.  Dr.  Andrews  : — The  suggestion  offered  by  the 
gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  strikes  me  with  great  force. 
I  desire  to  ask  the  committee  whether  they  have  themselves 
read  the  hymus  in  the  Book  "  Hymns,  Ancient  and  Mod- 
ern." 1  have  read  them  ;  this  resolution  is  au  endorsement 
of  them.  I  must  take  an  exception  to  the  statcnieut  that 
it  is  used  in  England  more  extensively  than  in  this  country. 
Some  of  those  hymns  are  notoriously  contradictory  of  the 
doctrines  of  this  Church.  This  resolution  amounts  to  an 
endorsement  of  that  which  I  am  persuaded  a  great  majority 
of  this  House  are  not  prepared  to  vote  upon,  because  they 
don't  know  what  they  are. 

Rev.  Dr.  Pitkin  : — I  had  the  honor  at  the  last  General 
Convention  to  introduce  the  substance  of  the  report  by  the 
Committee  on  Canons.  Dui'ing  the  course  of  the  remarks 
I  said  that  millions  of  copies  had  been  published.  I  must 
say  that  subsequeutly  I  was  anuoyed  that  I  had  made  such 
an  exaggeration  ;  but  I  learned  some  two  months  ago  that 
I  did  not  exceed  the  number;  that  the  declaration  was 
true ;  that  millions  of  copies  had  been  published ;  and  I 
can  say  from  my  own  personal  knowledge  that  "Hymns, 
Ancient  and  Modern"  are  not  only  used  by  all  shades  of 
parties  in  the  Church  of  England,  but  very  extensively  for 
family  use.  Everywhere,  where  I  had  an  opportunity  of 
observation,  I  found  "  Hymns,  Ancient  and  Modern,"  and 
in  very  general  use  for  family  hymns,  not  oidy  those  se- 
lected hynms  which  are  general  favorites,  but  I  found  they 
were  used  generally  ;  that  is  to  say,  there  was  no  exception, 
and  they  have  become  so  common,  and  so  general  as  to  be 
almost  household  words  throughout  the  length  and  breadth 
of  the  land.  Now,  I  do  hope  that  this  resolution  will  pre- 
vail, and  that  we  shall  have  the  opportunity  of  using  these 
hymns  ;  and  that  we  shall  not  be  confined  as  we  have  been. 
Certainly,  we  have  sutficiont  testiniony  in  our  Church  with 
reference  to  the  general  favor  with  which  these  hymns  liave 
been  received.  While  there  may  be  exceptions  taken  to 
one  or  two  hymus,  yet  after  the  abundant  and  universal 
testimony  given  these  hynms,  why  should  we  reject  a  col- 
lectiou  that  is  so  much  used,  simply  on  the  ground  that  it  is 
just  possible  that  we  may  take  exception  to  one  or  two  of 
the  hymns.     In  that  way  an  objection  would  lie  against  thr 


collection  authorized  by  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer.  Do 
we  not  take  exception  to  some  of  those  hymns  ?  We  do 
not  reject  them,  because  these  hymns  are  authorized.  I 
am  sure  that  iji  the  present  instance  no  harm  can  come. 
The  moment  has  arrived  when  we  should  have  this  liberty. 
And  I  can  say  that  these  "Hymns,  Ancient  and  Modern" 
have  been,  through  the  blessing  of  God,  one  of  the  most 
powerful  agencies  to  promote  the  great  religious  movement 
in  England  at  the  present  hour,  just  as  the  hynms  of  John 
and  Charles  Wesley  were  instrumental  through  the  blessing 
of  God  in  advancing  the  religious  movement  that  occurred 
at  that  hour.  "  Hymns,  Ancient  and  Modern  "  have  served 
the  same  purpose,  and  everywhere  that  you  see  that  glori- 
ous religious  enthusiasm  which  prevails  in  England  you 
will  find  the  Hymns,  Ancient  and  Modern  expressing  their 
devotion.  I  hope  that  these  oljjectious  will  not  prevail,  but 
that  we  shall  have  the  hymns  which  are  suited  to  our  pres- 
ent circumstances,  in  order  that  we  may  sing  the  praises  of 
God  in  that  multitudinous  language  which  these  collections 
which  are  set  before  us  certainly  provide.  1  have  read 
over  these  hymns  and  approve  of  them  ;  but  that  testimony 
would  be  of  little  value ;  and  in  Hke  manner  the  testimony 
of  three  or  four  or  five  gentlemen  would  be  of  little  value. 
Of  greater  value  is  the  fact,  that  there  is  no  book  that  is  so 
extensively  circulated  anjong  all  classes  of  Churchmen,  of 
all  shades  of  opinion,  as  is  this  book  of  "  Hymns,  Ancient 
and  Modern."  I  have  used  those  books  myself  again  and 
again  in  English  churches,  and  I  have  found  them  among 
Churchmen  of  all  shades  of  opinion.  I  know  that  while 
these  hymns  meet  the  views  of  those  who  hold  the  highest 
doctrine,  they  are  not  objected  to,  but  most  cordially  re- 
ceived and  devoutly  u.sed  by  those  of  the  lowest.  I  know- 
through  large  sections  of  England  these  books  are  as  com- 
mon as  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer. 

Rev.  Dr.  Adams  : — I  wish  to  call  the  notice  of  the  Con- 
vention to  the  fact  that  I  drat"ted  the  canon  which  went  be- 
fore the  committee  and  produced  their  resolution.  I  wish 
to  know  now  whether  I  cannot  bring  forward  that  original 
canon  as  an  amendment  to  their  resolution. 

The  President:— You  can  offer  any  amendment  you 
choose. 

Rev.  Dr.  Adams  : — I  then  offer  this  canon  as  an  amend- 
ment to  the  resolution  of  the  committee.  I  wish  this  House 
to  listen  to  me  with  a  little  care  while  I  put  down  the  prin- 
ciples on  which  that  canpn  was  predicated.  The  considera- 
tion first  is  this:  that  the  present  hymnal  of  the  English 
Prayer  Book  is  the  hymnal  of  the  Church  ;  and  therefore 
that  I  take  it  that  no  resolution  of  this  committee  cap  au- 
thorize any  congregation  to  substitute  any  hymnal  for  that 
until  further  constitutional  action. 

Messages  Nos.  61  to  53  were  here  received  from  the 
House  of  Bishops. 

Rev.  Dr.  Adams  (resuming) : — I  will  say  that  the  canon 
which  I  proposed  simply  will  be  this.  Taking  it  for  granted 
that  there  were  in  the  Church  of  England  and  our  Church 
three  very  popular  collections  of  hymns,  "Hymns,  Ancient 
and  Modern;"  "Hymns  of  the  Society  for  the  Propagation 
of  the  Gospel;"  and  the  "Hymns  for  Church  and  Home." 
Taking  it  for  granted,  then,  that  occasionally  a  clergyman 
of  our  Church  would  desire  to  have  permission  to  sing  a 
liN  inn  out  of  the  collections,  the   object  of  this  canon  was 


164 


simply  that  any  individual  clergyman  should  be  permitted 
to  use  such  a  hymn,  with  the  consent  of  liis  Bishop,  given 
in  writing,  the  request  for  permission  to  use  being  in  writ- 
ing. That,  I  conceive  will  give  an  opportunity  of  singing 
hymns  which  no  one  can  have  any  objection  to;,  and  which 
the  gentlemen  who  objected  against  Hymns,  Ancient  and 
Modern  certainly  cannot  object  to.  I  think,  seeing  the  po- 
sition in  which  we  are  iu  regard  to  hymns,  that  every 
clergyman  and  layman  in  this  Church  will  see  that  it  is  but 
right  and  fair  that  in  the  ease  of  an  occasional  beautiful 
hymn  in  these  three  collections  the  clergyman  should  have 
the  right  to  ask  the  liberty.  The  canon  is  drawn  up  I  must 
say  with  exceeding  care ;  and  I  think  that  no  man  will 
have  any  objection  to  it.  I  will  say  upon  this  point  that 
our  collection  is  in  regard  to  music  the  best  of  all  collec- 
tions ;  but  I  will  say  that  outside  of  us  there  are  from  60 
to  80  hyinns,  most  admirable  hymns,  which  lie  in  these 
three  collections,  and  which  I  think  many  clergymen  desire 
to  use  ;  and  it  is  for  the  purpose  of  giving  them  that  liberty 
under  episcopal  supervision  that  I  move  the  adoption  of 
this  canon.  And  I  think  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  will 
be  content  with  it ;  and  that  until  we  can  get  a  revised 
hymnal  of  our  own,  which  I  confess  is  in  the  far  distance, 
I  think  this  canon  will  content  this  House ;  and  I  am  of 
the  opinion  that  if  they  will  listen  carefully  to  my  explana- 
tion and  appreciate  the  position  in  which  hymn  singing  is 
put  by  this  canon  they  will  pass  it  without  further  trouble. 
The  Secretary  then  read  the  canon,  as  follows : 

"  Canon .  While  our  own  collection  of  hymns  usu- 
ally annexed  to  the  Prayer  Book  is  the  hymnal  of  this 
Church,  nevertheless  any  clergyman  with  the  express  con- 
sent of  his  Bishop  is  given  the  power  and  autliorized  to  use 
as  supplemental  any  hymn  in  the  underneath  collections 
publicly  in  our  own  Church  and  the  Church  of  England : 
'  Hymns,  Ancient  and  Modern  ; '  '  Hynuis  for  Church  and 
Home;'  'Hymns  of  the  Society  for  the  Propagation  of  the 
Gospel.'  And  this  permission  shall  be  applied  for  in  writ- 
ing, specifying  the  hynius  intended  to  be  employed ;  and 
the  permission  also  shall  be  in  writing." 

Rev.  Dr.  Howk  : — I  was  going  to  explain  why  the  com- 
mittee did  not  adopt  and  recommend  this  canon.  In  the 
first  place,  Mr.  President,  inasmuch  as  we  brought  in  sim- 
ultaneously a  proposition  for  the  revisal  of  our  entire  psal- 
mody and  hynmody,  we  did  not  think  it  expedient  to  cast 
a  canon  upon  the  subject  just  at  this  time.  In  the  next 
place,  we  did  not  think  it  expedient  to  enact  a  canon  at  any 
time  which  should  make  it  necessary  that  on  each  individ- 
ual occasion  when  a  clergyman  desired  to  use  a  particular 
hymn  in  one  of  the  three  collections,  he  should  have  to  ask 
in  writing  permission  from  the  Bishop  and  get  that  permis- 
sion iu  writing.  In  the  third  place,  we  did  not  think  it  de- 
.sirable  to  set  before  the  Church  three  collections  out  of 
which  such  selections  might  be  made,  but  two  alternate 
ones,  the  one  supposed  to  be  more  agreeable  to  what  may 
be  called  the  one  wing  of  the  Church  and  the  other  to  the 
other ;  and  while  there  were  believed  to  be  by  the  Commit- 
tee on  Canons  tw^  or  three  at  most  in  Hymns,  Ancient  and 
Modern  that  we  all  would  not  subscribe  to,  so  there  were 
hymns  in  the  other  collection  that  would  not  be  after  the 
taste  of  the  other  wing  of  the  Church.  We,  therefore,  pre- 
sent these  two  collections. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haigbt  : — One    more  reason  might  be  added. 


that  is,  one  of  the  books  specified   in   the   canon   does  not 
exist.     There  is  no  such  book.     [Laughter.] 

Rev.  Dr.  Aua.\is  ; — I  have  it  in  my  posses.siou  ;  if  that 
don't  exist  I  do  not  exist.     [Laughter.] 

Rev.  Dr.  Haigut: — Then  my  brother  must  be  annihilated 
for  there  is  no  such  book.     [Laughter.] 

Rev.  C.  P.  Gadsden  : — Hymns,  Ancient  and  Modern  is  a 
volume  that  I  have  had  upon  my  table  for  some  years,  and 
many  hymns  in  it  are  exceedingly  precious,  and  I  suppose 
will  be  generally  received  by  all  persons ;  but  there  are  at 
least  two  hymns  in  that  collection  which  involve  doctrinal 
points  upon  which  this  Church  is  not  only  widely  divided  in 
opinion,  but  which  I  believe  really  go  contrary  to  the  ac- 
cepted doctrine  of  the  Church  on  all  hands.  We  have 
never  before  accepted  any  hymn  on  this  floor  without  hav- 
ing it  sent  to  a  committee  and  examined;  and  while  hymns 
may  be  objectionable,  yet  I  suppose  there  is  not  iu  our 
present  collection  any  hymn  supposed  to  be  directly  in  op- 
position to  the  pronounced  doctrines  and  opinions  of  the 
Church.  But  there  are  at  least  one  or  two  in  that  collection 
which  I  think,  if  they  were  carefully  examined,  would  be 
found  so  to  read.  Therefore,  I  hope  we  will  not  be  pressed 
to  accept  the  whole  volume  without  examination  and  to 
endorse  it  in  this  way  and  to  send  it  before  the  Church  as 
receiving  the  sanction  of  this  body.  There  is  a  great  deal 
in  it  of  no  value  at  all ;  and  there  are  doctrinal  points  stated 
jn  these  hymns  which  I  cannot  persuade  myself  if  submit- 
ted to  this  Church,  this  Convention  would  be  ready  to  en- 
dorse. I  therefore  protest  against  the  endorsement  of  the 
book  without  thorough  examination  and  without  this  House 
understanding  what  it  is  doing. 

Rev.  Dr.  Paddock,  of  Michigan : — The  question  has  been 
asked  over  and  over  again  whether  members  of  the  Com. 
mittee  on  Canons  had  examined  the  book  [Hymns  Ancient 
and  Modern]  and  therefore  meant  to  certify  as  to  the  char- 
acter of  this  volume,  which  they  thus  seem  to  endorse.  I 
need  hardly  say  that  it  is  hardly  possible  that  any  book 
would  be  endoi'sed  directly,  or  indirectly,  by  the  Committee 
on  Canons,  unless  it  was  certified  that  more  than  one  mem- 
ber had  examined  the  volume.  It  \yas  said  that  many 
members  had  examined  the  volume ;  but  I  do  not  under- 
stand that  the  Committee  on  Canons  endorsed,  in  the  strict 
sense,  this  particular  volume,  namely,  Hymns  Ancient  and 
Modern.  I  felt  it  my  own  duty  to  vote  against  even  so 
much  a  seeming  endorsement  as  comes  before  this  House 
bv  the  recommendation  of  the  committee.  I  beheve  every 
word  the  gentleman  from  South  Carolina  has  just  said.  I 
could  go  further,  being  familiar  with  it.  I  think  it  is  a 
book  of  great  merit,  in  the  main  ;  it  is  a  book  with  some 
very  poor  hynius,  and  containing  some  two  or  three  whose 
doctrinal  statements  are  altogether  inaccurate,  and  such  as 
I  would  not  accept ;  and  1  do  not  believe  that,  if  put 
out  nakedly  before  this  House,  they  would  receive  five 
votes  on  the  floor  of  this  House.  I  am  afraid  we  may  be  in 
danger,  on  account  of  our  impatience  in  this  matter.  The 
real  desire  of  this  House  is  to  have  an  enlargement  of  our 
hymnal.  I  am  afraid  we  may  be  in  danger  of  taking  the 
thing,  as  it  were,  by  the  lump,  and  so  seemingly  to  endorse, 
in  the  aggregate,  some  hymns  that,  as  individual  hymns,  I 
am  sure,  we  ought  not   to    endorse.     If,  therefore,  the  rec- 


165 


ominendatioa  of  the  ooramittee'be  imtlerstood  as  an  endorse 
ment  of  all  liymns  injthat  liook  (Hymns,  Ancient  and  Mod- 
ern,) I  should  want  to  have  it.  disthietly  understood,  as  a 
member  of  tlie  Committee  on  Canons,  that  I  must  dissent 
from  it.  If  it  merely  otters  the  book  as  a  sort  of  tentative 
book  for  the  use  of  tins  House,  then  I  might  be  willing  to 
let  it  pass ;  though  I  do  feel  that  it  is  opening  a  wide  door 
to  allow  the  use  of  two  volumes,  one  containing  three  hun- 
dred hymn^,  to  take  their  place  among  the  authorized 
hymns  of  this  Church  without  a  careful  examination  by  the 
members  of  this  House. 

Rev.  Dr.  Hare  : — I  am  much  in  favor  of  the  amendment, 
for  the  reason  urged  by  the  mover,  namely,  if  the  Hou.se  of 
Bishops  concur  in  this  matter,  it  would  not  be  necessary  to 
have  the  consent  of  the  individual  Bishops,  from  time  to 
time ;  and  I  should  be  willing,  in  accordance  with  the  sug- 
gestion of  the  Deputy  from  South  Carolina,  that  this  matter 
should  be  sent  to  a  committee,  in  order  to  examine  as  to 
the  particular  things  referred  to.  I  recently,  as  one  of  a 
party  of  several,  traveled  in  Europe.  We  represented  the 
two  different  leading  schools  of  our  Church.  We  every- 
where, of  course,  attended  the  services  of  the  Church  of 
England  on  the  continent — the  service  used  by  the  conti- 
nental and  colonial  society.  The  most  of  the  party,  as  from 
time  to  time  they  heard  the  Liturgy  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land read,  rejoiced  in  the  very  great  improvement  made  in 
that  Liturgy  by  the  American  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 
But  all  of  the  party  were  not  agreed  in  relation  to  this  mat- 
ter ;  but,  as  to  the  hymns  we  heard,  the  hymns  generally 
called  Hymns,  Ancient  and  Modern,  sometimes  the  hymns 
set  forth  by  the  Society  for  the  Promotiou  of  Religion,  we 
all  joined  in  the  opiuion  that  for  simplicity,  devout  spirit, 
and  church-like  dignity,  they  far  surpassed  the  hymns  of 
our  own  Church.  I  therefore  rejoice  to  hear  this  proposi- 
tion. With  regard  to  (he  exceptional  points,  ive  may  refer 
the  matter  again  to  this  or  another  committee,  to  remove 
those  difficulties  ;  but  I  do  trust  we  may  not  lose  the  oppor- 
tunity of  improving  our  worship  by  these  most  ennobling, 
spiritual,  and  church-like  hymns — Hymns,  Ancient  and 
Mode™. 

Deputy,  from  Maryland ; — With  regard  to  the  doctrines 
of  the  Hymns,  Ancient  andModern,  I  suppose,  if  we  Were 
to  examine  the  hymns  set  forth  in  our  Prayer-Book  at  the 
present  day,  there  are  hardly  a  half  dozen  men  on  this  floor 
that  could  be  reconciled  about  the  doctrines  of  those 
hymn.s.  We  had,  the  other  day,  one  of  our  most  learned 
men  bring  in  a  very  reasonable  objection  to  a  hymn  which 
is  commonly  used  in  the  Prayer-Book  ;  it  is  called  the  Lit- 
any Hymn. 

Hon.  S.  B.  RuGOLES : — I  wish  to  ask  for  information.  1 
have  no  objection  to  Hymns  Ancient  and  Modern.  I  wish 
to  ask  what  is  to  become  of  the  hymns  already  set  forth  by 
the  Bishops,  under  the  resolution  of  the  last  Convention? 
Are  they  to  be  continued,  or  not  ? 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight  [in  the  Chair]  : — Yes,  sir. 
Rev.  Dr.  Richard  S.  Mason  : — I  don't  think  anything  can 
be  presented  to  this  House,  for  their  consideration,  of 
greater  importance  than  the  subject  now  before  us,  in  re- 
spect to  the  hymns  of  the  Church.  With  regard  to  the 
greater  number  of  those  who  belong  to  the  Church,  the 
doctrine  is  not  derived  from  the  thirtv-nine  articles.      It  is 


not  so  much  derived  from  the  Liturgy,  because  the  Liturgy 
of  our  Church  is  intended  to  comprehend  almost  the  whole 
world  of  orthodox  Christians.     This  is  a  remarkable  beauty 
in  our  Chuivh,  that  if  there  is  to  be  a  Catholic  Church,  it 
unist  be  our  own.     A  Baptist,  a  Presbyterian,  or  a  Roman 
Catholic  can  commune  with  us,  although  we  could  not  re- 
ciprocate   with   them  ;  because  they  impose    conditions  of 
communion  which  we  cannot  accept.     But  almost  the  whole 
orthodox  world   can   commune   with  us  ;  therefore,  in  our 
Liturgy,  the  peculiarities  of  doctrine  are  not  expressed.     It 
is  intended   to   be    a   Liturgy  for  the  Cathohc  Church — the 
Church  of  the  world.     But  in  regard  to  liynnis,  that  is  not 
the  case  ;  and  the  doctrine  of  the  great  body  of  the  Church 
is  derived  more  from  the  hymns  than  from  anything  else; 
and,  I   think,  therefore,  an    exceeding   caution   should   be 
used  with  regard  to  any  additional  hymns.     If  I  were  to 
propose  a  resolution,  it  would  be,  to  constitute  a  committee 
to  shut  out  hymns.     There  are  many  hymns  in  our  Church 
which  I  never  will  use.     Under  the  present  aspect  of  things, 
what  is  to  prevent  a  clergyman,  if  he  finds  a  hymn  that  in- 
culcates, or  tends  to  inculcate  doctrines  of  transubstantia- 
tion,  to  employ   it  on  purpose  ?     Suppose  he  finds  a  hymn 
which  tends  to  shut  out  the  idea  of  an  intermediate  state ; 
is  that  proper  ?     I  know  there  are  hymns  used  in  our  Sun- 
day-school  which  have  that  tendency  ;  declaring   that  the 
children   at  once  go  to   glory  ;  and  so  it  is  with  regard  to 
the  various  doctrines  of  our  Church ;  and,  therefore,  I  say, 
it  is  far  from  my  idea  that  it  is  advisable  that  there  should 
be  an  extension  of  hymns.     It  is  my  idea,  rather,  that  there 
should  be  a  restriction  of  hymns.     We  do   not  need  many 
hymns  to  communicate  the  doctrines  of  the  Church.     I  re- 
member, when  I  was  a  mere  child  I  was  taught  the  fifteenth 
Psalm,  and  that  psalm  has  been  so  impressed  upon  my  mind 
ever  since,  I  hope  it  has  been  of  service  in  keeping  me  from 
anything   like   a   want   of  charity.     Are    we   called    upon 
to  sing  definitions  ?     Some  hymns  are  but  little  more  than 
definitions  ;  and  I  do  not   conceive  that   they  are  a  promo- 
tion of  devotion     Is  the  hymn  "  Vital  spark  of  Heavenly 
flame"  a^proper  hymn  ?     There  is  one  recently  admitted,  by 
Bishop    Heber,    "  Brightest   and   best  of  the  sons  of  the 
morning,"  which  either  contains  no  devotion,  or  is  an  idol- 
atrous devotion.     I  therefore  say  that  I  would  adopt  a  can- 
on, much  rather   than  a  resolution,  because  the  Bishops  can 
guard  against  anything  like  ftilse  doctrines. 

Mr.  Welsh  : — I  would  like  to  make  a  proposition.  The 
subject  is  under  discussion  elsewhere,  as  I  know.  There 
are  a  few  hymns  in  "  Hymns,  Ancient  and  Modern"  which 
they  are  taking  out ;  and  if  the  amendment  is  pas.sed, 
striking  out  the  closing  part  of  the  resolution,  it  is  my  prop- 
osition to  refer  it  to  a  committee.  I  know  the  Bishops  have 
the  subject  under  consideration  ;  and  the  few  objected  to 
will  be  taken  out,  so  that,  if  we  pass  the  amendment,  it  will 
be  easy  to  refer  that  to  a  committee,  and,  I  think,  that  we 
can  pass  it  to-morrow,  unanimously. 

Rev.  Dr.  Peterkin: — I  wish  to  say,  with  reference  to  the 
gentleman  who  has  taken  his  seat,  that  this  is  a  subject  of 
great  importance  ;  and  yet,  I  think,  our  deliberations  may 
tend  to  some  good  purpose.  For  exami)le,  I  listened  to 
the  objection  which  was  brought  to  that  admirable  hymn  of 
Bi.shop  Heber.     I  think  that  hymn,  as  now  written,  ought 


1B6 


not  to  stand  in  the  supplementary  hymns  which  are  allowed 
to  be  used  in  this  Church,  because  it  is  a  direct  appeal — 
"  Brightest  and  best."  Miglit  it  not  be  altered,  and  tlieu 
put  into  the  third  person  singular  ?  I  wish  to  say  (and  this 
is  the  principal  object  for  which  I  arise)  tliat  while  all  agree, 
perfectly,  that  we  ought  to  be  sure  to  have  doctrinal  hymns, 
I  would  like  to  have  grammatical  accuracy.  [A  voice — 
"  And  a  little  poetry."]  Yes,  sir,  a  little  poetry.  There  I 
must  say  something  in  behalf  of  our  present  hymnal,  which, 
on  the  whole,  is  the  most  unobjectionable  book  of  hymns 
that  ever  has  been  presented  to  the  world.  We  are  not 
obliged  to  sing  every  one  of  these  hymns.  We  have,  with 
this  Prayer-Book,  all  the  supplemental  hymns  that  have 
been  already  published,  and  all  the  liberties  we  desire,  for 
the  present,  untU  this  committee  which  has  been  appointed 
shall  have  made  its  report.  But  I  wish  to  speak,  for  a  mo- 
ment, upon  this  point :  the  necessity  of  grammatical  and 
rythmical  accuracy.  There  is  a  hymn  which  I  have  seen 
in  some  collection  of  hymns,  the  author  of  which  was  some 
person  of  great  piety — 

"Broad  is   the  road  that  leads  to  death. 
And  thousands  wall;  together  there ; 

[A  voice — "  Dr.  Watts."]  Just  tlie  closing  line  of  that 
hymn  I  don't  like  ;  not  as  anything  that  I  cannot  subscribe 
to,  in  doctrine,  but  as  to  grammar.  For  example,  the  clos- 
ing verse : — 

"  Lord  !  let  not  all  my  hopes  be  vain ; 

Create  my  heart  entirely  new, 
Which  hypocrites  could  ne'er  attain  ; 

Which  false  apostates  never  knew." 

There  is  rythmical  inaccuracy,  and  everything  el^e,  Yet, 
it  would  have  been  so  perfectly  easy,  if  he  had  not  been  in  • 
a  liurry.  A  gentleman  ought  not  to  be  in  a  hurry  when  he 
writes  something  that  is  to  penetrate  the  heart  of  the  rising 
generations  of  the  whole  Church.  I  do  not  want  to  sing 
hymns  that  may  vitiate  our  modes  of  thought  or  expression. 
[The  speaker  here  criticised  another  hymn  as  to  propriety 
of  expression,  and  showed  that,  as  originally  written  by 
Wesley,  it  was  not  so  objectionable  as  the  ordinary  version.] 
We  ought  to  be  careful  not  only  to  secure  doctrinal  psalms, 
and  elevation,  and  jmrity  of  sentiment,  but  grammatical  ac- 
curacy. Tliere  must  be  grammatical  inaccuracy,  I  suppose, 
in  many  of  our  speeches  here  in  this  Convention,  and,  prob- 
ably, elsewhere ;  but  when  a  thing  is  written,  for  the  use  of 
the  Church,  let  us  see  to  it,  with  the  utmost  of  care  and  de- 
liberation— protracted  deliijeration,  if  you  please — that  it  is 
something  we  shall  not  be  ashamed  of,  in  any  one  particu- 
lar. 

Mr.  Wei.su  : — I  understand  that  the  Committee  on  Canons 
are  willing  to  allow  the  amendment. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mauan  : — I  should  hope  not,  without  a  meeting 
of  the  committee. 

Mr.  McCkady  :— The  laity  have  a  voice  in  the  Prayer- 
Book.  Now,  it  is  said  that  one  that  has  the  making  of  the 
songs  of  a  people,  can  make  the  people.  If  you  have  the 
liberty  of  singing  what  you  please  in  our  churches,  you  in- 
doctrinate it ;  but  the  laity  have  no  choice  here  ;  it  is  to  be 
tlie  minister  who  is  to  decide,  and  who  is  restrained  by  his 
Bishop.  But  I,  as  a  layman,  want  to  have  a  voice  in  .select- 
ing the  hymns  ;  and  that  is  not  an   unreasonable  desire.     I 


do  not  want  to  have  my  children  indoctrinated  with  notions 
in  the  hymnal,  tlnit  are  not  in  the  I'rayer-Book.  If  you 
give  two  books,  from  which  you  may  select  hymns,  and 
there  are  only  a  lialf  dozen  in  them  that  are  antagonistic, 
you  will  have  tiiem  sung  a  dozen  times  while  the  others  will 
be  sung  a  single  time,  and  so  you  will  have  our  "  Wings" 
fighting  each  other  in  their  hymns,  and  they  might  as  well 
fight  in  their  prayers.  Whatever  you  allow  to  be  put  be- 
fore us,  should  be  approved  by  the  whole  of  us,  in  the  form 
in  which  the  present  book  is  approved. 

A  motion  to  lay  the  whole  matter  on  the  table  was  lost. 
Rev.  Dr.  Anurews  moved   to  refer  the  resolution  to  the 
Committee  on  Canons,  for  furtlier  consideration,  to   report 
as  they  pleased. 

This  motion  was  lost ;  and  the  question  then  recurred  on 
the  amendment  ofl'ered  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Adams,  to  substi- 
tute his  canon  for  the  report. 

Hon.  S.  B.  Rdqgi.ES  : — Does  not  that  exclude  the  supple- 
meutal  hymns  proposed  by  the  Bishops  ? 
Rev.  Dr.  Adams  : — Certainly  not. 

Rev.  Mr.  Rogers  : — As  between  the  two,  I  think  the  last 
would  harldly  be  fair,  when  my  Bisliop  is  on  tlie  Red  River, 
and  I  cannot  seud  and  get  word  from  him  in  two  months. 

A  vote  was  then  taken  on  the  question  of  the  adoption  of 
the  substitute,  when  it  was  lost. 

The  question  then  recurred,  upon  the  motion  of  Mr. 
Welsh,  to  strike  out  "  with  the  consent  of  the  Bishops." 

Rev.  Dr.  GoonwiN  : — That  question  is  a  new  question — 
the  motion  to  amend — and  I  desire  to  say  that  as  the  com- 
mittee have  emphatically  declined  the  position  of  recom- 
mending the.se  hymns,  and  as  it  is  to  be  understood  that 
the  Convention  does  not  authorize  their  use,  this  amend- 
ment becomes  vital.  The  committee  do  not  prolcss  to  rec- 
ommend these  books  for  use,  or  in  any  wise  authorize  the  use, 
or  propose  to  authorize  them,  as  recommended  to  this 
Church.  It  is  understood  that  this  Convention  takes  the 
same  ground — tluit  we  do  not  authorize  the  use  of  hymns, 
exactly,  but  we  leave  liberty  to  use  them.  To  whom  is  the 
liberty  to  be  left?  It  is  said  that  if  the  House  of  Bishops 
pass  it,  it  will  all  be  well.  But  tlie  House  of  Bishops  will 
stand  on  the  same  ground  of  not,  on  thorough  examination 
of  all  these  hymns,  recommending  them  all  for  u.se  in  the 
Church.  Then,  I  say,  it  remains  to  ask,  to  whom  sliall  it 
be  left?  To  the  Bishop  of  the  diocese  and  the  clergymen 
desiring  to  use  them,  or  to  the  clergyman  alone  ?  And  if 
it  is  to  be  left  to  the  clergyman  alone  to  determine  wliat 
hymns  to  use,  why  confine  that  clergyman  to  these  two 
books,  if  it  be  admitted  that  there  are  some  objectionable 
hymns  in  the  book  ?  I  ask  gentlemen  to  correct  me,  if  I 
am  wrong,  that  in  the  Church  of  England  they  have  no  pre- 
scribed hymnal;  every  clergyman,  as  I  understand  it,  selects 
his  own  hymns.  If  that  be  the  rule  in  this  Church,  very 
well — we  ought  not  to  recommend  any  book.  Now,  take 
the  case  of  England.  This  book  is  very  largely  used.  Very 
good.  Suppose  that  nine-tenths  of  all  the  hymns  of  that 
book  would  be  perfectly  satisfactory,  and  that  I  should  have 
the  privilege  of  using  them.  Then  I  should  use  those 
hymns.  But  here  is  another  tenth  that  somebody  else  may 
desire  to  use,  and  that  is  very  well ;  but  we  differ.  There 
are  some  hymns  that  some  would  use,  and  others,  that  oth- 


167 


era  would  use.  I  like  the  figure  that  was  used  by  my  rever- 
end colleague,  a  little  while  ago,  that  here  are  hymns  that 
would  satisfy  both  "wings  of  the  Church."  I  like  this  fig- 
ure of  "  wings  of  the  Ohurch" — wings  by  whicli  she  may 
fly — may  rise  aloft,  as  an  eagle,  to  heaven.  Let  them  bo 
wings,  and  let  them  agree  together  in  action,  as  I  trust  they 
would ;  but  I  do  not  see  the  propriety  of  selecting  these 
hymns,  with  this  view,  unless,  at  least,  Mr.  President,  we  re- 
quire the  endorsement  of  the  Bishop  of  the  diocese.  You 
cannot  have  the  endorsement  of  the  Hom^se  of  Bishops.  I 
have  spoken,  therefore,  directly  to  the  terms  of  this  amend- 
ment. 

The  Shxretary  then  read  the  amendment  to  strike  out 
the  words  "  the  Bi.shop  of  the  diocese  in  which  such  congre- 
gation exists  consenting"  ;  and  the  vote  being  taken  there- 
on, theamenilment  was  lost. 

Whereupon  the  question  recurred  upon  the  resolution,  as 
reported  by  the  committee ;  and  that  was  adopted. 

The  House  then  proceeded  to  the  consideration  of  the 
order  of  the  day,  which  was  the  consideration  of  the  report 
of  the  majority  of  the  Committee  on  Canons,  on  the  sub- 
ject of  Ritual. 

The  report  of  the  majority  being  read  by  the  Secretary — 

JonOE  CoNYNGHAM  Said — :  In  order  that  this  whole  sub- 
ject may  come  properly  before  this  House,  1  move  as  a 
substitute  for  the  resolution  of  the  majority  of  the  committee 
the  resolution  offered  by  the  minority  of  the  committee ; 
and  I  would  ask  that  they  may  be  read  by  tlie  Secretary  be- 
fore making  some  few  observations. 

Whereupon  the  Secretary  read  the  resolution  of  the  mi- 
nority of  the  committee. 

The  Prksidknt  : — Will  Judge  Conyngham  permit  me  to 
suggest  one  question  ?  I  perceive  in  the  order  of  proceed- 
ings of  this  House,  differing  from  those  of  ordinary  deliber- 
ative bodies  in  that  particular,  so  far  as  I  can  find  out,  that 
an  aineudhient  may  be  offered  and  an  amendment  to  an 
amendment,  and  that  no  subsequent  amendment  can  be  re- 
ceived, but  that  a  .substitute  may  be  received,  and  that  when 
an  amendment  to  an  amendment  is  under  consideration,  a 
substitute  for  the  whole  matter  may  be  received.  I  do  not  see 
any  other  place  for  a  sub.stitute  to  be  offered. 

JunoE  Conyn<;ham  was  understood  to  accept  the  sugges- 
tion, and  to  move  the  resolutions  as  an  amendment.  He 
then  proceeded  :  It  is  not  inten(\cd  by  any  thing  that  I  may 
do  to  place  this  in  a  condition  that  it  cannot  be  amended. 
It  is  simply  offered  with  the  desire  to  bring  before')  the 
House  and  permit  this  House  to  vote  upon  the  two  prop- 
ositions as  they  are  submitted  to  them.  I  submit  a-s  a  sub- 
stitute the  views  of  the  minority.  They  arc  more  in  accord- 
ance with  those  I  entertain  myself  than  the  others,  and  yet 
were  I  to  follow  out  all  perhaps  I  might  desire  to  do  per- 
sonally, they  would  be  enlarged  and  made  more  specific 
than  they  arc.  But  I  am  perfectly  satisfied  under  all  the 
circumstances  of  the  case  to  submit  these  as  they  are  now 
presented  to  the  House.  When  I  presented  the  memorials 
a  few  days  ago,  I  stated  then  while  I  presented  also  the 
form  of  the  canon,  that  I  was  not  prepared  to  say  what  ac- 
tion I  myself  would  take  in  relation  to  the  canon  ;  and  I 
have  been  willing  therefore,  upon  reflection  and  upon  the 
advice  of  others  which  I  am  very  willing  to  submit  to,  to  de- 


cide to  agree  with  the  majority  of  the  committee,  that  the 
canon  is  inexpedient.  It  is  enough  that  we  have  report- 
ed resolutions  for  tlic  action  of  the  House  in  any  shape. 
Ihope  they  will  receive  the  approval  of  the  House.  I  do 
not  rise  to  oppose  the  report  of  the  majority  ;  I  sim- 
ply prefer  the  report  of  the  minority.  It  has  been  the  boast, 
nay,  sir,  it  has  been  rather  the  heart-felt  and  al)iding  feeling 
of  every  member  of  our  Church,  that  there  has  been,  where- 
ever  the  members  of  the  Protestant  fipiscopal  Church  have 
been  worshipping,  a  uniformity  of  worship ;  and  it  is  the 
great  gratification  of  all  of  us  here,  that  while  we  are  sepa- 
rated from  our  families,  we  know  when  the  Lord's  day 
comes  around,  that  there  the  same  worship  is  being  oft'ered 
in  which  we  are  united  here.  This  ari.ses  from  the  feeling 
of  a  uniformity  of  worship  ;  and  this  uniformity  of  wor- 
ship it  is  claimed  by  a  number  of  highly  respectable  gentle- 
men who  have  signed  memorials  that  have  been  placed 
upon  the  table  of  this  House,  is  broken,  not  so  much  in 
the  words  spoken  as  in  the  various  matters  connected  with 
that  character  of  worship  that  destroys  the  effect  of  their 
use.  ■  This  being  the  case,  we  desire  that  there  should  be 
some  change  on  this  subject,  not  that  there  should  be  any 
canon  regulation,  but  that  there  should  be  a  warning  voice  of 
the  Church,  to  go  out  and  advise  all  those  who  ought  to  pay 
obedience,  what  they  are  called  upon  to  do.  Heretofore 
when  we  were  travelling  and  came  to  some  httletown  or  to 
some  city,  and  we  inquired  where  there  was  an  Episcopal 
Church,  we  hesitated  not  to  go  there.  We  went  into  the 
church  and  felt  that  we  should  be  worshipping  as  our  fath- 
ers did  and  as  our  families  would  be  worshipping  elsewhere. 
Now,  however,  it  becomes  necessary  to  present  a  different 
question  and  ask,  is  there  a  variety  of  that  worship,  not  in  the 
words,  but  iu  those  appendages,  and  various  matters  exhib- 
ited there  distracting  the  attention  of  one  who  comes  in  for 
the  first  time  and  sees  them  destroying  the  character  of  that 
worship  that  ought  to  be  pure  ande  sparated  from  the  sensu- 
ous thing  in  this  world  below.  We  have  a  Church  that  is  na- 
tional in  one  sense  of  the  word,  not  in  the  sense  in  which  the 
Anglican  Church  is  national,  but  it  is  national  here,_it  is  the 
Protestaut  Episcopal  Cliurch  in  these  United  States  of  Ameri- 
ca, so  recognized  ih  the  preface  of  the  Prayer  Book,  and 
so  recognized  in  the  terms  in  which  the  Prayer  Book  was 
ratified.  When  wc  learn  that  the  usages  and  practices  of 
that  Church  as  conducted  by  our  fathers,  and  to  which  we 
have  been  long  accustomed,  are  changed  and  that  other 
matters  are  introduced — I  will  not  enter  into  details — so 
different  from  those,  is  it  not  time  that  the  voice  of  the 
Church  should  be  put  forth  and  expressed  in  unmistakable 
terms  as  to  the  views  of  the  Church  at  large  V  We  can  look 
back  many  years  since  and  see  what  were  the  usages  and 
practices  of  the  Protestant  E|)iscopal  Church  in  America. 
It  is  not  difficult  to  ascertain  them.  There  arc  those  yet  liv- 
ing who  can  tell  you.  I  can  look  back  myself  for  a  great 
many  years;  and  I  can  remember — for  it  has  been  a  com- 
mon expression  with  me  that  I  was  born  and  bred  in  the 
Church,  under  the  late  Bishop  White — I  can  look  back  for 
a  period  of  something  like  sixty  years  and  remember  when 
I  went  into  church  what  appeared  before  me.  There  are 
many  that  can  go  back  further.  Arc  there  not  appearan- 
ces presented  now  that  are  different?  And  why  is  it?  To 
gratify  fancy  ?  Let  not  this   question  he  brought  in.     Let 


168 


these  things  all  be  cast  away.  Is  it  to  symbolize  auythiiig  y 
Let  not  that  which  is  regarded  in  other  communions  as 
symbolizing  that  which  we  regard  as  wrong,  be  introduc- 
ed. These  things  operate  upon  the  minds  of  the  young, 
and  the  minds  of  the  young  are  led  astray.  I  will  mention 
what  occurred  almost  within  ray  own  knowledge  lately. 
In  a  snuiU  country  town  a  young  man  coming  from  the  city 
said  he  was  a  ritualist,  that  he  understood  all  about  these 
things  and  in  the  country  we  knew  nothing  about  them. 
On  entering  church,  he  spoke  to  some  one  near  him  and 
said  to  him,  "  Tell  me  what  are  the  points  of  compass  here  ; 
what  is  the  particular  bearing  of  this  church ;  for  when  I 
make  certain  reverences  I  am  accustomed  to  bend  to  the 
east?"  [Laugliter.]  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  these  things 
are  taught  generally ;  but  we  know  what  these  things  lead 
to.  I  have  been  spoken  to  since  I  brought  tliis  subject  before 
the  House  by  many  persons  of  different  shades  of  opinion 
from  myself,  asking  that  these  things  should  be  brought 
forward.  But  why  should  we  aid  them ;  why  should  we 
recognize  changes  ;  where  is  the  necessity  for  them ;  where 
do  we  find  the  ground  of  rest?  Come  to  our  own  Church  ;  I 
mean  that  branch  of  our  Church,  not  speaking  generally 
upon  the  term  church  as  looking  beyond  the  time  when  our 
church  was  organized,  but  our  branch  of  the  Church,  and 
there  let  us  rest  and  abide.  We  have  referred  in  one  of 
these  resolutions  to  the  action  of  certain  Bishops  of  the 
Churcli  in  the  year  1814.  I  admit  before  this  House  that 
this  is  not  to  have  the  force  of  a  canon,  or  the  force  of 
law,  or  the  force  of  anytliing  more  than  the  expression  of 
opinion;  but  when  we  do  find  that  the  BLshops  in  1814, 
there  expressed  what  their  opinion  was,  incidentally  only,  but 
still  expressed  their  opinion  in  1814,  what  the  ordinary  vest- 
ments of  a  minister  of  the  Church  were,  when  they  did  so,  why 
shall  we  not  now  be  content  with  the  accompaniments  that 
always  then  attended  upon  them  ?  Look  back  and  inquire  into 
and  ascertain  from  those  that  lived  in  that  day  what  were 
the  usages  and  practices  of  the  Church  in  these  matters.  I 
am  aware  that  it  is  almost  useless  to  address  this'House  upon 
the  subject.  There  are  many  that  know  more  about  these 
matters  than  I  do.  I  regret  that  I  have  extended  my  re- 
marks so  far  ;  but  I  am  endeavouring  to  bring  them  within 
the  allotted  ten  minutes  ;  I  ask  this  House  to  look  at  these 
things,  and  to  look  at  what  is  stated  in  the  fourth  resolution 
of  order,  not  that  we  justify  these  matters.  Let  them  reflect ; 
let  them  see  how  it  .appears  to  others ;  let  them  see  that  it 
has  been  condemned  by  authority  elsewhere,  and  as  far  as 
there  is  imitation.  I  regret  to  see  that  there  is  too  much 
of  the  spirit  of  imitation,     [Here  the  gavel  fell]. 

Judge  Otis  : — The  only  question  now  before  the  House 
is  the  substitute  moved  by  Judge  Conyngham.  The  report 
of  the  majority  of  the  committee  was  first  before  the  House. 
A  substitute  for  that  is  moved  by  Judge  Conyngham  ;  and 
his  remarks  are  upon  the  substitute.  I  have  but  very  little 
to  say,  but  what  I  have  to  say  will  be  directly  then,  against 
the  substitute,  against  the  adoption  of  the  report  of  the 
minority  of  the  committee.  lu  the  first  place,  this  Clmrch 
cannot  legislate  by  resolution ;  it  may  express  an  opinion. 
No  clergyman  can  be  tried  for  holding  opinions  contrary  to 
resolutions  passed  by  this  House  or  this  General  Convention 
The  canons  of  our  Church  expressly  provide  that  clergymen 
may  be  tried  for   violating  the  canons  and  con.'rtitution  of 


this  Church.  They  ma.y  bej  tried  for  holding  and  teaching 
doctrines  contrary  to  the  doctrines  of  this  Church,  holding 
and  teaching  doctrines  contrary  to  tho.^e  prescribed  by  this 
Church  ;  therefore  resolutions,  being  mere  bruia  fnhnina 
of  opinions  that  may  be  expres.sed  by  this  House,  and  dif- 
ferent ones  expressed  by  the  next,  three  years  hence,  have 
not  force  of  law;  no  man's  conscience  will  be  bound  ;  no 
man  who  in  conscience  believes  contrary  thereto,  will  vary 
his  acts  or  proceedings  in  conducting  public  worship  to 
accord  with  any  resolution  we  may  pass.  We  cannot  even 
legislate  upon  matters  of  conscience,  and  make  our  clergy 
and  laity  change  their  opinions,  much  less  pass  resolutions 
declaring  that  so  and  so  we  believe  to  be  the  sentiments  of 
this  Church,  wlien  we  ourselves  admit  that  they  cannot  be 
held  as  binding  and  law.  Therefore  is  it  wise  at  this  time 
to  express  an  opinion  on  the  subject,  which  can  have  no 
force  upon  the  conscience  of  our  clergy  or  laity  ?  I  think 
not.  It  is  proposed  as  the  ground  work  of  this  whole  meas- 
ure that  dangerous  or  new  innovations  are  being  taught, 
that  dangerous  practices  symbolizing  dangerous  doctrines 
are  being  taught,  and  practiced  by  our  clergy  and  introduc- 
ed into  their  services.  Now,  then,  as  to  that  there  is  now 
no  legislation  in  this  Church  upon  the  subject  of  teaching 
by  symbols.  We  legi.«late  only  upon  public  opinions  express- 
ly held  ;ind  taught.  We  cannot  legislate  as  yet,  we  never  have 
as  yet,  against  the  teachings  of  a  symbol,  because  one  man 
says  it  teaches  this,  another  that  it  teaches  that,  and  anoth- 
er will  deny  that  it  teaches  any  thing  at  all.  This  fourth 
resolution  proposes  expressly  to  declare  certain  things  un- 
lawful, and  not  [proper  to  be  used  in  this  Church.  I  say, 
at  the  present  time  we  are  not  prepared  in  this  country  to 
express  a  definite  opinion  upon  these  subjects ;  for  it  is 
claimed  by  the  whole  Church  of  England,  I  do  not  say 
whether  it  is  so  or  not — (I  defer  to  the  Bishops  and  clergy 
in  all  matters  of  that  kind).  I  say  it  is  claimed  by  the  whole 
Church  of  England  that  these  are  lawful,  at  least  certain 
ones  have  been  lawful  iu  the  Church  of  England  since  the 
Reformation  ;  and  upon  that  point  I  express  my  own  opin- 
ion that  this  Church  was  not  organized  in  this  country  after 
the  Rei'olution  as  anew  Church.  There  were  churches  of  the 
Church  of  England  in  ten  colonies  prior  to  the  Revolution, 
stretching  all  along  the  Atlantic  coast,  churches  having  cler- 
gymen of  the  Church  of  England  and  a  Prayer  Book  of 
the  Church  of  England.  They  were  members  of  the 
Church  of  England  and  when  the  Revolution  made  it 
necessary  to  throw  ott'  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop  of  Lon- 
don who  had,  then,  ecclesiastical  supervision  of  these  church- 
es, it  became  necessary  to  organize  by  themselves,  but  were 
they  not  still  in  full  communion  with  the  Church  of  England  '! 
Certainly.  They  did  not  change  their  faitli  in  any  particu- 
lar. They  organized  them  in  this  country  separately,  pro- 
vided Bishops  of  their  own  and  sent  them  to  England  to 
be  consecrated,  having  the  same  faith,  the  same  Church  th.at 
they  had  before,  and  we  are  to-day,  this  day,  in  as  full  com- 
munion and  as  thoroughly  agreed  in  the  faith  of  the  Church 
of  England  as  we  were  anterior  to  the  Revolution,  as  I  un- 
stand  it,  by  law. 

Their  practices  and  usages  have  never  been  estab- 
lished in  this  country,  as  I  understand  it,  contrary  to 
the  Church  of  England  in  the  method  of  our  conduct- 
ing  the   services  of  the    Church,    except    so  far  as  our 


169 


Prayer  Book  varies  from  theirs.  Such  being  the  case 
these  men  coming  from  England  here  brought  their  relig- 
ion with  them  as  colonists  of  England,  the  same  as  those 
who  go  to  Australia  or  New  Zealand,  or  any  colonies,  carry 
with  them  the  Common  Law  of  England  as  well  as  the  re- 
ligion of  the  Church  of  England.  Both  go  with  them. 
This  is  a  fundamental  principle  in  the  law  of  nations  in  every 
country.  Our  courts  have  decided,  from  the  organization 
of  this  country,  that  we  brought  from  England  the  Common 
Law  of  England.  We  brought  the  religion  of  England, 
those  who  were  members  of  the  Church  of  England,  when 
they  organized  it.  Then  we  are  the  same.  Whatever  is  lawful 
in  the  Church  of  England  is  lawful  here,  provided  we  have  not 
prohibited  it.  Then,  this  Church  was  not  a  new  Church 
when  our  forefathers  first  landed  at  Plymouth  Rock.  It 
does  not  date  there.  It  was  not  a  new  Church  when  our 
ancestors  first  landed  at  Jamestown.  It  does  not  date  there, 
though  they  brought  their  Prayer  Book  and  their  religion 
with  them.  It  goes  back  further.  Where  does  it  stop  ?  I 
coutend — and  I  speak  with  deference  in  the  presence  of 
clergymen — I  contend  it  was  not  a  new  Church  at  the  Re- 
formation in  England.  It  dates  back  of  that  we  know,  back 
of  Edward  VI.  It  goes  back  to  the  planting  of  that  true 
Chureli  by  the  Apostles,  one  of  whom  came  and  planted  a 
true  Apostolic  Church  in  the  Island  of  Great  Britain.  This 
kept  on  reforming,  and  being  reformed,  from  time  to  time 
as  necessity  required,  at  times  being  compelled  by  the  ar- 
bitrament of  the  sword  to  submit  to  the  Pope  for  a  hundred 
years  at  a  time,  then  throwing  oflF  that  and  asserting  its  pu- 
rity ;  and  it  has  gone  on,  not  looking  to  Geneva  for 
reforms,  but  making  its  own  reforms ;  and  we  are  the 
descendants  of  that  glorious  early  Church  that  has 
been  handed  down  to  us  from  primitive  times.  Now, 
I  say,  here  is  Rome  on  one  side  of  us,  and  here  is  Geneva  on 
the  other.  We  occupy  a  great  belt  lying  between.  We 
cannot  go  to  the  extreme  on  either  side  ;  but  in  this  great 
broad  belt  between,  there  may  be  diiferences  of  opinion ; 
and  we  have  tolerated  for  more  than  three  hundred  years 
these  differences  of  opinion,  and  we  cut  off  none  who  are  in- 
clined to  walk  on  the  .side  of  the  belt  nearest  Geneva,  neith- 
er cut  off  those  who  walk  on  the  side  of  the  belt  nearest 
Rome.  We  tolerate  you  all,  so  you  do  not  get  over  the  line 
[Laughter].  Toleration,  then,,  is  what  I  plead  for.  Those 
brethren  who  believe  in  a  high  ceremonial,  can  worship 
God  in  simplicity  and  truth.  Let  them  worship  Him  so. 
Those  who  want  meagerness  and  barrenness  approaching 
to  the  denominations  thatjsurround  us,  let  them  have  it  so,  so 
they  keep  within  the  requirements  of  our  law ;  and  our  law 
has  never  undertaken  to  prescribe,  I  trust  never  will,  too 
rigid  and  iron  a  rule.  During  the  thirty  years  from  1780  to 
1810,  the  Church  of  England  lost  one  hundred  and  nine 
thousand  of  its  communicants  in  the  Wesleyan  movement  at 
the  period  when  their  services  were  at  a  low  stage,  corres- 
ponding almost  with  the  denominations  and  dissenters 
aronnd  them.  In  consequence  of  lowering  the  standard, 
your  folds  flock  away  into  the  denominations. 

Hon.  S.  B.  RuGGLES: — -My  much  honored  friend  from 
Illinois  has  done  me  great  wrong — he  has  taken  away  near- 
ly all  the  speech  I  intended  to  make.  I  wish  to  continue 
the  same  strain  of  liberal  remark  which  I  listened  to  so 
gladly  from  him.     I  am  here  to  plead  for  toleration  in  this 

22 


Church  and  to  protest  against  intolerance.  That  is  the 
great  issue  now.  I  was  in  the  Convention  of  1859,  when 
the  question  came  up  of  toleration  against  intolerance.  .\ 
machine  was  proposed  to  us,  called  a  Court  of  Appeals,  the 
object  of  which  was  to  confine  within  rigid  lines  and  define 
every  possible  offence,  theological  or  secular,  and  punish  it 
by  a  hard  unyielding  court  like  the  authority  of  the  ancient 
court  of  Rome.  I  took  ground  at  once  against  that  institu- 
tion as  being  utterly  intolerant  and  objectionable  and  destruc- 
tive of  the  true  spirit  of  the  Church,  and  at  the  venture  of 
beingeven  egotistic,  I  will  read  precisely  what  I  said  upon  that 
occasion,  upon  that  question,  that  I  may  refer  to  the  decis- 
ion that  was  made  between  the  question  of  toleration  and 
intolerance. 

"The  Church  itself,  avowedly  exists,  not  a  uniformity,  but 
a  diversity."  Is  it,  or  is  it  not  true,  that  in  this  very  Church, 
and  even  among  its  learned,  pious,  and  venerable  Bishops, 
differences  of  doctrinal  opinion  do  exist  to  some  extent? 
that  some  of  these  excellent  men  do  not  walk  precisely  on 
the  same  line,  but  do  deflect  their  course  at  least  a  point  or 
two  in  the  direction  of  Rome  or  Geneva? 

I  beg  the  advocates  of  uniformity  to  tell  us  if  they  can,  how 
far  apart  are  the  extremities  of  these  various  shades?  Do 
they,  can  they  reasonably  hope  that  by  the  mere  machinery 
of  their  Court  of  Appeals,  they  can  establish  and  permanent 
ly  maintain  a  distinct,  unvarying,  equatorial  line  between 
Romanism  and  Calvinism, — wide  as  the  poles  apart?  on 
which  the  whole  Church  is  hereafter  dutifully  to  walk,  look- 
ing neither  to  the  right  nor  to  the  left,  to  the  north  or  the 
south. 

Let  us  assure  the  Constitution  menders,  who  would  thus 
confine  human  opinion  within  Procrustean  machinery,  hard 
and  unyielding,  that  the  pride  and  .glory  and  chief  attraction 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  at  least  in  the  eyes  o 
the  laity,  are  found  in  its  tolerations,  its  comparative  elastic 
ity,  its  gentle  and  Christian  conformity'to  the  varying  phases 
of  human  nature  and  human  institutions  ;  in  its  being  in  a 
word,  like  its  Divine  Founder,  a  body  not  of  stone  or  wood, 
but  of  living  flesh  and  blood.  It  is  this  generous  and  wide 
spread  toleration,  this  composite  and  truly  Christian  charac- 
ter, which  enables  it  to  attract  to'  the  fold  poor  wandering 
human  nature,  in  .all  its  aspects  and  all  its  errors,  seeking, 
not  by  force  but  by  love  to  elevate  and  save.  Its  leaders 
may  indulge  the  laudable  ambition  of  eventually  embracing 
within  its  authority,  the  largest  portion  of  the  vast  and  teem, 
ing  American  World.  Let  them  be  warned  by  the  example 
of  the  Church  of  Rome,  which  in  seeking  to  enforce  uniformity 
on  the  cold  and  comparatively  unimpassioned  nations  of 
northern  Europe,  lost  the  best  if  not  the  largest  portion  of 
Christendom.  Let  them  not  attempt  in  the  vigorous  image  of 
the  learned  and  reverend  Deputy  from  Virginia,  Dr.  Andrews 
to  force  on  our  wide  spread  congregations  a  theological  uni- 
form like  that  of  soldiers  in  an  army  reduced  to  one  com- 
mon undistinguishable  level, — but  rather  let  them  encour- 
age the  growth  of  varied  beauty  like  that  of  the  sisters  im- 
mortalized by  the  Roman  poet,  with  faces  not  the  same,  but 
with  a  becoming  likeness.  "Facies  non  omnibus  una,  nee 
diversa  tamen,  qualem  decet  esse  sororum. 

I  beg  that  the  clergy  and  the  laity  especially  will  go  for 
toleration.  If  I  proposed  anything  it  would  be  that  those 
two   abstract   propositions   which    recommend   no    action 


170 


should  be  laid  on  the  table,  but  printed  in  the  journal  that 
the  whole  Church  may  read  them  for  themselves  and  form 
their  own  opinion. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mason  : — I  do  not  know  that  I  shall  go  for 
the  resolutions  of  the  minority.  They  please  me  a  good 
deal.  I  observe  in  human  nature  tendencies  in  things  con- 
tinually. I  remember  the  time  when  the  tendency  of  the 
Church  was  to  disregard  what  is  called  ritual  completely  so 
as  to  run,  I  had  almost  said  into  indecency;  but  I  will  not 
use  so  strong  a  term.  At  that  time  it  was  the  duty  of 
every  one  to  guard  against  these  irregularities,  carelessness, 
indifference  to  deportment,  indifferent  regard  to  veneration 
of  the  House  of  God,  and  the  absenc  eof  public  worship  in 
that  hovi.se.  Then  again,  in  the  condition  of  mankind 
there  is  a  tendency  in  an  opposite  direction.  We  find  this 
is  constantly  taking  place ;  and  I  am  afraid  that  the  tenden- 
cy of  things  at  this  time  is  in  this  opposite  direction  ;  I 
would  therefore  by  .some  proper  means  guard  if  possible 
against  that  tendency  to  the  opposite  extreme.  I  think  that 
the  Committee  on  Canons  have  done  exceedingly  wLsely  by 
refusing  to  bring  forward  a  canon  endeavoring  to  regulate 
these  matters ;  and  perhaps  on  the  whole  the  resolution 
which  the  majority  suggested  is  the  better,  but,  as  I  said 
before,  I  am  exceedingly  glad  that  the  minority  have 
brought  forward  their  report,  and  have  shown  the  opinions 
to  exist  among  them,  which  I  confess  are  my  own  opinions 
too,  that  there  should  be  a  regard  as  to  what  is  the  proper 
character  and  condition  of  our  Church.  There  are  various 
kinds  of  religion.  There  is  the  purely  intellectual  religion. 
It  was  said  of  the  character  of  the  philosopher,  that  he  was 
a  pure  intellect;  when  guilty  of  cruelty  it  was  not  the  ma- 
lignant cruelty,  but  as  the  absence  of  affection.  There  may 
be  a  sensuous  religion  which  is  employed  in  the  gratification 
of  the  senses.  I  do  not  say  sensual.  Then  there  may  be 
an  emotional  religion  which  tends  to  enthusiasm  ;  and  then 
there  is  the  religion  of  symbols  whose  tendency  is  to  idola- 
try and  superstition ;  and  there  is  a  religion  which  com- 
bines intellect  and  the  exercise  of  the  affections  which  is 
true  and  proper  religion,  and  this  is  accompanied  with  all 
the  decency  and  regularity  of  character  and  deportment, 
and  this  I  ci^nceivo  to  be  the  religion  of  the  Church.  It 
then  avoids  any  excesses  of  sensuousness  of  symbolism 
which  is  apt  to  run  into  idolatry  or  superstition.  Now,  how 
far  persons  may  go  into  what  is  called  ritualism  and  yet 
avoid  these  things  I  do  not  pretend  to  say.  But  I  say  it  is 
proper  and  right  that  we  should  do  .something  to  avoid  that 
extreme  which,  I  believe,  we  are  going  into.  I  have  heard 
contest  as  to  whether  we  ought  to  wor.ship  at  the  altar  or 
at  the  table,  whether  lights  should  be  brought  on  the  altar 
or  placed  around  it.  I  take  it,  if  we  go  back  to  the  institu- 
tion of  the  Lord's  Supper,  we  shall  be  able  to  determine 
something  of  this  matter.  There  is  no  question  but  that 
our  Lord  ate  the  Last  Supper  at  the  table  when  He  consecrated 
the  elements.  Did  He  sit  there  at  an  altar  or  not  ?  If  He 
did  not,  I  cannot  seehow  we  can  worship  at  an  altar.  Lights 
were  unquestionably  on  the  table,  for  what  purpose  ?  Were 
they  symbolic  or  only  for  the  purpose  of  the  time  at  which 
the  Lord's  Supper  was  celebrated  ?  Therefore  it  is  not  pos- 
sible we  should  really  point  at  that  which  our  Church  con- 
demns, for  instance  transubstantiation  or  any  other  false 
doctrine  of  the  church  of  Rome,  unless  the  symbolism  should 


point  out  something  of  that  sort.  It  is  extremely  difficult 
to  lay  your  finger  upon  that  point  in  which  the  thing  should 
be  avoided  or  may  be  allowed  to  be  practised.  Therefore  I 
say  it  is  very  wi,se  in  the  committee  not  to  make  a  canon. 
Perhaps  on  the  whole,  considering  the  state  of  things,  we 
ought  to  feel  that  the  resolution  of  the  majority  may  be 
more  correct;  yet  lam  rejoiced  that  the  minority  of  the 
committee  did  bring  forward  their  resolution. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight  : — As  a  member  of  the  committee,  as 
one  who  did  not  concur  with  the  minority,  I  desire  to  say 
but  a  very  few  words  upon  this  subject,  and  beg  leave  to 
refer  to  this  one  point,  the  reasons  why  I  cannot  concur  in 
the  views  of  the  minority  and  why  I  cannot  vote  for  their 
resolution.  There  are  certain  things  assumed  in  the  report 
of  the  minority  and  certain  things  underlie  their  resolutions 
which  to  ray  mind  are  not  founded  in  truth  or  in  fact.  It 
is  claimed  on  the  part  of  the  minority  as  we  read  in  the  first 
preamble  "Whereas  it  has  heretofore  been  one  of  the  pecu- 
liar characteristics  of  this  Church  &c  ,  that  itsworship  and  the 
mode  of  conducting  it  have  been  in  all  respects  substantially 
alike. 

I  do  not  think,  sir,  that  this  is  strictly  true  "substantially 
alike  heretofore."  Within  the  last  thirty  or  forty  years, 
until  the  last  few  years,  in  one  sense  they  have  been  sub- 
stantially alike ;  but  will  any  man  stand  up  here  and  tell  me 
that  the  u.sages  of  the  Church  in  Virginia  were  the  same 
with  the  usages  of  the  Church  in  New  York,  and  that  when 
a  member  of  the  Church  of  New  York  went  into  Virginia  he 
found  always  the  surplice,  and  always  heard  the  Ante  Com- 
munion service  read,  and  always  witnessed  the  administra- 
tion of  the  Lord's  Supper?  Will  any  gentleman  here  say 
that  when  gentlemen  from  Virginia  came  to  New  York  they 
found  precisely  the  same  worship  in  Trinity  Church  of  New 
York  or  any  of  the  old  churches  in  New  York  as  in  Rich- 
mond and  Frederickburg  ?  We  all  know  that  is  not  the 
case  and  never  was. 

We  have  had  one  liturgy ;  but  we  have  different  uses  in 
different  parts  of  the  country,  not  only  in  regard  to  these 
things  I  have  mentioned,  but  also  in  regard  to  clerical  vest- 
ments. I  had  the  honor  to  spend  three  years  of  my  life  in 
the  Diocese  of  Ohio.  I  am  glad  that  I  had  that  privilege. 
The  present  Bishop  of  Ohio  was  my  diocesan,  and  I  never 
felt  for  any  man  alive  greater  veneration,  respect,  and  affec- 
tion than  I  have  for  him,  and  which  I  shall  feel  to  my 
dying  day.  But  did  I  see  nothing  in  Ohio  which  I  do 
not  see  in  the  city  of  New  York  where  I  was  born  and  spent 
all  my  life  except  those  three  years  ?  I  remember  perfectly 
well  in  the  Church  in  the  Capital  of  Ohio  at  that  time  where 
there  was  an  honored  brother  who  was  zealous  for  the  truth 
as  he  held  it,  who  would  not  wear  any  clerical  vestments. 
He  had  no  reading  desk  but  a  pulpit  such  as  you  see  in  the 
denominations  around  us.  He  would  not  wear  either  gown 
or  surplice  ;  and  when  the  bishop  of  the  diocese  remon- 
strated with  him,  and  told  him  that  he  should  wear  a  gown, 
what  did  he  do?  He  put  the  gown  in  a  band-box  and  the 
band-box  in  the  pulpit,  and  when  he  went  into  the  pulpit 
he  took  out  the  gown  and  shook  it  and  put  it  on.  Is  that 
the  use  we  see  here  ?  [Laughter.]  I  claim  that  the  broad 
statement  made  by  my  colleague  for  whom  I  entertain  the 
highest  respect  is  not  founded  in  strict  fact — that  we  never 
have  reached  the  uniformity  in  regard  to  ceremonial  he  has 


171 


now  claimed  we  have.     There  is  another  principle  which 
underlies  the   whole  report  of  the   minority;    that  is  the 
principle  which  my  learned  friend  from  Illinois  has  supplied, 
that  this  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States 
of  America  is  somehow  or  other   a   new  church — that  it  is 
independent  of  and  having  no  right  to  the  glorious  heritage 
of  our  fathers,  the  glorious   heritage  of  the  Church  in   the 
days  of  St.  Paul,  or   in  the    days  of  those  who    in    former 
years  ministered  at  her  altars  in  the  island  of  Great  Britain. 
I   hold   no  such  views   as   these.     They  were   repelled   by 
Bishops  White  and  Seabury.     Bishop  White  has  declared 
again  and  again  in  the  strongest  terms  that  this  Church,  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  Ameri- 
ca, is  the  Church  of  England  in  this  country  ;  and  that  all 
laws  of  the  Church  of  England  not  expressly  repealed  in  this 
Church   are   binding  upon  the  consciences  of  the   clergy ; 
and  if  you  do  not  admit  this  fact,  you  have  no  law  upon  the 
subject  of  marriage,  binding  upon  the  ^consciences  of  the 
clergy.    In  this  view  I  have  always  had  a  clear  beacon  light 
in  regard  to   this  matter  of  marriage.     I  claim  not  to  put 
my  views  as  the  standard  of  my  brethren.     I  say  that  the 
idea  which   underlies  this  whole  report  is  a  fallacy.     It  is 
claimed  that  the  ritual  of  this  Church  has  been  unchanged 
since  the  time  of  the  American  Revolution.     I  am  not  an 
old  man,   Mr.  President, — I  do  not  feel  old — but  I  can  go 
back  a  good  many  years  in  this  city  of  New  York,   and  in 
Trinity    Parish   in   which   I    now    minister   and   in    Christ 
Church  where  I  was  born  and  trained  under  Bishop  Wain- 
wright  until  the  time  of  my  ordination.     It  is  perfectly  idle 
for  gentlemen  to  stand  up  and  talk  of  an  unchanged  and  un- 
changeable order  of  the  Church.     What  did  you  do  in  Trini- 
ty Church   fifty  years  ago  ?     You   saw  at   the  end    of  the 
Church  a  high  pulpit,  underneath  it  a  large  reading  desk, 
and  under  that  a  clerk's  desk.     How  was  the  service  con- 
ducted? The  organist  died  only  a  few  years  ago  who  played 
the  first  chant  to  which  the  Venite  was  sung  in  Trinity  Church. 
The  services — were   they  conducted  by  the   whole  body  of 
the  people  as  now  ?     The  clerk  did  the  responding  with  his 
loud  sonorous  voice,  and  the  people  sat  back  and  quietly 
looked  on.     How  was  baptism  administered?     There  was 
no  font  in  Trinity  Church.     Back  by  the  door  in  a  pew,  was 
a  shelf,   and  there   a   basin.     Public  baptism  was  a  thing 
scarcely  known.     Owing  to  the  miserable  customs  that  pre- 
vailed in  the  city,  brought  over  from  London,  the  baptisms 
were  done  in  private.  I  have  seen  the  bishop  of  this  diocese 
baptize  the  child  of  a  clergyman  in  his  own   jjurlor  for  no 
other  reason  whatever  than  that  he  chose  to  do  it ;  and  un- 
til the  time  of  my  ordination  I  never  saw  a  public  baptism 
in  Christ  Church.     It  was  never  done  on  Sunday  ;   it  may 
possibly  have  been  done  on  some  week  day.     Look  at  the 
change!     Do  you  go  anywhere  without  seeing  a  font?     Is 
not  public  baptism  the  rule?  and  where  do  you  find  the  old 
three-deckers  ?  [Laughter].     The    reading  desk  went   long 
ago.     The  parish  clerk,  I  am  thankful  to  say,  we   have  not 
heard  from  for  forty  years.     It  will   not  do   to   talk  of  un- 
changcableness  in  our  mode  of  conducting  Divine  worship. 
I  never  heard  the  Ante  Communion  read  except  at  the  desk 
until  in  holy  orders  some  seven  years.     In  Trinity  parish  the 
clergyman  never  went  to  the  Lord's  table  except  on  Com- 
munion Sundays. 

I  merely  point  out  these  changes  to  show  that  there  are 


iallacies  underlying  the  views  of  the  minority  report — fal- 
lacies which  render  it  impossible  that  those  resolutions 
should  be  carried  in  this  House. 

I  am  and  I  trust  I  shall  always  be  in  favor  ol  toleration 
in  this  Church.  I  was  brought  up  in  one  sen.se  at  the  feet 
of  Bishop  Hobart,  and  was  taught  to  reverence  him.  I  knew 
him  as  well  as  a  lad  could  know  a  man  of  his  high  position. 
What  was  the  policy  of  Bishop  Hobart  and  all  his  succes- 
sors? Did  Bishop  Hobart,  Bishop  Onderdonk,  Bishop 
Wainwright,  or  Bishop  Potter  ever  persecute  a  man  because 
he  did  not  agree  with  him  in  Church  principles?     No,  sir. 

Rev.  Charles  Bbeck  : — I  would  say  to  the  members  of 
this  House  that  I  am  the  rector  of  a  parish  where  the  sur- 
plice was  worn  230  years  ago,  and  the  surplice  alone ;  they 
knew  nothing  about  gown  or  band.  I  would  speak  a  few 
words  to  my  reverend  and  beloved  friend  Judge  Conyng- 
ham.  I  came  to  the  city  of  New  York  a  year  ago.  I  went 
to  the  city  of  Brooklyn  and  I  went  to  the  churches  of  the 
representative  men  of  this  Church,  In  the  first  place  to 
which  I  went  X  found  the  services  conducted  precisely  as 
they  had  been  conducted  where  I  was  ordained,  precisely  as 
I  conduct  them  in  my  Church.  I  saw  nothing  new ;  I 
saw  no  prostration,  no  bowing — nothing  but  what  I  had 
been  accustomed  to  for  the  greater  part  of  my  ministerial 
life.  In  the  afternoon  I  went  to  another  church  of  the  same 
stamp  of  Churchmauship,  and  there  I  found  precisely  the 
same  worship  and  the  same  vestments  that  the  honorable 
Judge  [Conyngham]  saw  me  wear  in  my  church  thirty  years 
ago.  Then  in  the  course  of  a  few  weeks  I  was  called  upon 
to  be  in  the  midst  of  a  large  gathering  of  the  clergy  of  the 
city  of  New  York,  in  the  church  of  the  Holy  Communion. 
There  was  a  large  number  of  them,  nearly  all  of  them  of 
one  stamp.  I  saw  no  new  vestment — nothing  but  what  I 
had  been  accustomed  to  all  my  life.  I  went  the  next  day  to 
St.  Luke's  Church  where  there  was  a  lar^e  gathering  of 
clergymen,  and  I  saw  no  new  vestments  and  no  dilHcully  in 
engaging  in  the  worship.  I  afterward  went  to  Baltimore 
and  went  into  a  variety  of  churches  and  found  the  vestments 
all  familiar,  nothing  new,  nothing  strange — nothing  to 
alarm  anyone.  I  make  these  statements,  merely  to  show 
that  we  are  not  in  such  a  distracted  state  as  many  gentle 
men  think.  We  may  find  things  if  we  go  and  hunt  for 
them  ;  but  I  say  there  is  a  very  sound  and  full  uniformity 
among  the  clergy  of  this  Cliurch,  and  I  for  one  am  willing 
to  abide  by  the  rules  and  directions  of  the  bihsops  of  the 
Church.  I  am  willing  to  submit  to  his  regulations,  his  ad- 
vice, and  his  admonitions.  Therefore  it  is  I  feel  warranted 
in  repudiating  the  condition  that  these  resolutions  repre- 
sent us  to  be  in,  and  that  there  is  not  that  difficulty  of  wor- 
shipping as  we  have  been  accflstonied  to  worship  all  the  days 
of  our  lives. 

Kov.  Dr.  Burr  : — Reference  lias  been  made  by  luy  dis- 
tinguished friend  the  clerical  deputy  from  New  York, 
if  he  will  allow  me  to  call  him  so,  to  the  practices  of 
former  days  and  he  had  references  to  Ohio  as  well  as 
to  other  parts.  I  wish  to  inform  him  that  whatever  may 
have  been  the  deficiencies  in  former  days  as  to  Ohio, 
they  have  been  corrected  as  they  have  been  in  the  city 
of  New  York  ;  and  that  if  he  will  honor  us  with  a  visit- 
to  Ohio  he  will  find  not  only  a  great  many  oldfriends  thore 


172 


who  esteem  him  most  highly,  but  he  will  find  that  we 
are  as  rubrical  and  correct  as  any  other  diocese  in  these 
United  States.  He  has  given  you  an  instance  of  depart- 
ures from  the  order  of  the  Church  in  regard  to  clerical 
garments.  I  wish  to  correct  him  and  this  House  in  re- 
gard to  that  matter,  for  it  does  retlect  on  a  venerable 
and  beloved  brother  who  ministered  at  that  time  in  the 
capital  of  the  State  of  Ohio.  1  lived  at  that  time  within 
eight  miles  of  the  capital  of  Ohio  ;  and  1  believe  that  1 
was  fully  acquainted  with  what  was  the  practice  of  that 
venerable  clergyman  ;  and  I  say  that  I  never  heard  of 
such  doings  or  any  such  practices  as  my  friend  from  New 
York  has  alluded  to.  I  am  sure  that  had  it  been  the 
case,  I  should  have  known  it,for  I  was  in  constant  commu- 
nication with  him  and  his  parishioner's.  We  were  ex- 
changing, every  month,  and  I  never  heard  anything  of 
that  kind.  I  have  known  that  clergyman  to  wear  the  gown 
regularly.  Soon  after  he  went  there  he  preached  in 
the  first  place  perhaps  a  year  or  two  in  a  German 
church,  where  there  were  no  conveniences  for  wearing 
gowns  or  surplices  or  any  clerical  garments ;  and  I  pre- 
sume at  that  time  it  was  not  worn  ;  but  afterwards  it  was, 
as  I  very  well  know.  But  that  is  neither  here  nor  there. 
My  li-iend  has  alluded  to  the  defects  in  Ohio  and  in  New 
York.  Undoubtedly  we  have  changed,  and  1  trust  much 
for  the  better  in  that  respect ;  but  1  desire  while  on  the 
floor  to  correct  the  misapprehensions  that  seem  to  be 
entertained  with  regard  to  the  practices  of  the  present 
day  in  Ohio.  I  deny  positively  that  there  is  any  essen- 
tial difference,  any  essential  departures  from  the  strict 
order  of  the  Church,  in  Ohio.  It  is  a  great  mistake ;  we 
have  been  greatly  misrepresented.  Neither  of  our 
Bishops  will  tolerate  any  departures  if  they  know  it.  I 
speak  from  what  1  know.  I  have  ministered  in  Ohio 
nearly  forty  years ;  and  1  claim  to  know  as  much  of  that 
diocese  as  any  other  man,  at  least  as  any  man  that  does 
not  live  in  that  diocese.  It  is  not  true  as  respecting  her 
that  there  are  essential  departures  from  the  strict  order 
of  the  Church.  We  have  been  misrepresented.  It  is 
only  a  few  weeks  since  1  was  published  in  the  Gospel 
Messenger  as  having  administered  the  communion  with- 
out the  siu-plice.  1  never  did  such  a  thing  in  my  life 
except  when  we  had  no  surplices,  never  except  a  few 
mouths  ago  in  another  church,  Christ  Church,  in  the 
city  where  I  live.  1  went  to  administer  the  communion 
for  a  brother  there  and  1  found  no  surplice  in  his  ward- 
robe. It  had  been  left  by' mistake  at  his  house;  and 
I  put  on  a  gown  and  administered  the  communion. 
Some  of  my  good  Iriends  there  or  somewhere  else — I  do 
not  know  and  do  not  care  to  know — thought  it  an  omis- 
sion of  such  importance  that  it  should  be  pubhshed  in 
some  Church  paper ;  and  it  was  pubhshed  in  the  Gospel 
Messenger  that  a  clergyman  in  the  State  of  Ohio  had  ad- 
ministered so  and  so  without  the  surplice  when  one  was 
hanging  in  the  wardrobe.  I  was  told  that  I  was  the  man. 
This  is  a  true  statement  of  the  case ;  and  most  of  these 
statements  that  go  abroad   against  us  are  of  this  charac- 


ter. They  are  not  true  in  the  least.  Now,  I  sympathize 
with  my  friends  who  have  brought  in  the  minority  report, 
because  I  believe  the  expression  of  this  Convention,  by 
adopting  those  resolutions,  will  have  a  tendency  to  bring 
about  a  greater  degree  of  uniformity.  I  have  always 
loved,  through  a  long  course  of  ministry  in  this  Church, 
to  see  our  services  fully  performed  ;  and  where  I  have 
gone  I  have  desired  to  find  the  services  and  offices  of  the 
Church  administered  precisely  as  they  are  prescribed  in 
the  prayer  book.  I  am  glad  that  the  subject  of  omission 
and  defects  has  been  noticed  in  both  of  theses  reports — 
in  the  resolutions  attached ;  and  I  believe  they  will  do 
good.  I  am  not  strenuous  on  the  subject  as  to  which  of 
these  reports  shall  be  adopted.  Either  one  I  believe 
will  do  good.  It  will  be  the  advice  of  the  Church,  the 
advice  and  opinion  of  this  Convention,  and  going  forth 
to  the  Church,  it  will  I  trust  have  an  influence  both 
ways.  I  am  disposed  to  seek  for  uniformity  in  our  wor- 
ship, if  it  can  be  brought  about.  But  to  attain  to  that 
uniformity,  I  would  not  adopt  anything  that  should  have 
the  semblance  of  intolerance.  But  cannot  this  Conven- 
tion express  its  opinion  decidedly  as  to  the  desirableness 
of  uniformity,  and  will  not  that  expression  of  opinion 
have  a  great  effect  in  making  us  more  uniform. 

Mr.  E.  McCrady,  of  South  Carolma: — I  must  beg 
leave  to  protest  against  the  assumption  made  here  over 
and  over  again.  There  is  a  good  deal  of  assuming  what 
is  not  so.  I  deny  that  this  is  the  same  Church  as  the 
Church  of  England.  Are  we  any  more  the  Church  of 
England  than  we  are  the  Church  of  Scotland  '?  Does  not 
every  member  of  this  Convention  know  that  we  do  re- 
semble the  Church  of  Scotland  more  than  we  do  the 
Church  of  England  ?  What  right  have  you  to  say  that 
we  are  the  same  as  the  Church  of  England  ?  As  the 
Church  of  Alexandria  differs  from  the  Church  at  Jerusa- 
lem and  the  Church  of  Rome  and  the  Church  of  Antioch, 
so  we  differ  from  the  Church  of  England  ;  we  stand  side 
by  side.  You  must  not  say  because  we  do  proceed  from 
her  we  are  not  otherwise  than  herself.  Surely  we  are. 
If  we  are  of  strict  uniformity  at  all,  it  is  with  the  Church 
of  Scotland.  We  do  not  belong  to  either  the  one  nor 
the  other. 

Gentlemen  argue  this  question  of  uniformity  as  if  we 
were  seeking  uniformity  of  doctrine.  Not  so.  We  have 
the  example  of  the  Church  of  England  for  uniformity  of 
worship.  They  have  thought  it  necessary  to  pass  an 
act  of  Parliament  compelling  them  to  be  uniform.  If 
the  vestments  in  one  case  are  proper  they  are  every- 
where else,  not  only  proper  but  lawful  and  ought  to  be 
observed.  Now  here  we  ask  for  nothing  more,  but 
recommend  uniformity  of  worship,  not  doctrine.  Vary 
as  you  please.  Vary  as  you  have  been  accustomed  to 
vary.  Perhaps  I  no  not  agree  with  a  hundred  men  in 
this  body  or  half  that  number.  I  cannot  subscribe  to 
the  one  wing  or  the  other  ;  not  that  1  stand  between 
them  ;  but  I  differ  from  either  very  materially.  I  deny 
the  positions  of  both.     Our  object  is   uniformity  of  wor- 


173 


ship.  We  have  no  national  body  but  this.  All  we  ask  at 
the  present  day  is  advice.  Now  it  has  been  said  what- 
ever the  Church  of  England  now  may  do,  we  may  do. 
By  the  same  rule,  whatever  the  Church  of  Jerusalem 
did,  we  may  do ;  and  whatever  things  any  ancient 
Church  might  do,  we  might  combine  them  altogether  if 
we  choose  ;  it  would  be  a  very  dilticult  thing  to  take  all 
their  liturgies  and  put  them  together  and  use 
them ;  but  we  are  just  as  much  bound  to  them  as  to  the 
Church  of  England  ;  we  differ  from  them  all.  What 
says  the  preface  of  the  Prayer  Book  :  "It  seems  unneces- 
sary to  enumerate  any  essential  point  of  doctrine."  Now 
who  can  resist  that  argument '?  Who  can  fail  to  see  the 
truth  of  that  ?  They  say  what  we  leave  out  we  intend. 
If  you  compare  this  with  the  Book  of  Common  frayer 
of  the  Church  of  England  you  will  see  wherever  we  dii- 
fer  this  is  our  law  and  that  is  not.  You  cannot  find  the 
sentence  which  the  English  Prayer  Book  has  about  the 
vestments ;  it  is  not  only  in  the  acts  of  uniformity,  but  in 
the  English  Prayer  Book  near  the  preface,  those  vest- 
ments introduced  in  the  tione  of  Edward  VI,  should 
be  enforced,  should  be  in  use  now.  That  is  a  thing  that 
is  omitted  in  this  Prayer  Book  ;  and  you  are  told  by  this, 
compare  this  with  the  other  and  you  will  find  the  differ- 
ence. The  argument  is  conclusive  that  they  did  not  in- 
tend to  give  any  such  thing.  My  ten  minutes  will  not 
let  me  go  further  into  the  arguments.  If  the  substitute 
is  not  adopted  1  shall  have  my  chance  to  speak  again 
when  the  other  comes  up. 

Kev.  Dr.  MuLCHAHEY: — The  question  as  I  under- 
stand it  is  on  the  amendment ;  and  we  are  to  decide 
whether  we  prefer  the  substitute  proposed  by  the  mi- 
nority, or  the  report  of  the  majority.  I  shall  state,  in  a 
few  words,  why  I  prefer  the  resolutions  of  the  majori- 
ty ;  and  1  wish  to  say  those  words,  not  in  the  interest  of 
any  party  or  any  section  of  the  Church,  but  in  the  inter- 
est of  that  large  body  who  are  somewhat  represented  at 
least  in  this  body,  and  who  are  largely  represented  in 
the  Church  at  large — I  mean  the  clergy  in  the  country 
and  in  the  smaller  towns  and  parishes  of  this  land.  But, 
su',  I  have  wished  again  and  again,  as  I  have  read  the 
editorials  from  some  of  our  leading  Church  papers  in 
these  large  cities,  as  I  have  read  the  accounts  of  local 
rivalries,  the  congregational  competitions,  the  questions 
that  are  agitated  here,  and  tliat  are  thought  to  be  agitated 
all  over  the  country, — I  have  wished,  1  say,  that  these 
gentlemen  who  are  so  much  interested  in  their  local 
questions  could  only  be  omnipresent — that  they  could 
ouly  have  the  privilege  of  going  through  the  length  and 
breadth  of  our  land,  and  see  how  the  clergy  are  working 
on  in  the  spirit  of  their  mission,  in  simplicity  and  fideli- 
ty, to  build  up  this  Church  which  they  believe  the  Church 
of  Christ.  The  clergy  are  working  on  alone  in  the  small 
country  towns  and  parishes.  The  people  know  very 
little  or  would  care  very  little  about  these  ritualistic 
questions.  The  papers  come  to  them  once  a  week  with 
accounts  of  agitation  in  New  York,  witli  extracts  from 


the  English  papers  about  the  agitation   in  the    City  of 
London,  and  they  wonder  what  it  is  all  about;  and  they 
open  their   eyes   aud   ears  to  see  and  hear  anything  on 
the  pEirt   of  their   clergymen — anything  to  indicate  the 
tendencies  towards  Rome.     I  knew  an  instance   several 
years  ago  where  a  church  was  emptied  of  half  its  congre- 
oation  from  the  simple  fact  that  the  rector's  friends  had 
presented  to  the  rector  a  bishop's   chair  made  of  pine 
wood  (they  could  not  afford   black  walnut)  and  stained 
in  imitation  of  black  walnut ;  and  that  it  might  look  as 
much  like  a  bishop's  chair  as  possible,    tlie    friends  who 
had  it  made,  had  placed  on  the  back  of  the  chiir   such 
a  mitre  as  you  see  on  the  back  of  almost  every  bishop's 
chair.     The  clergyman  was  delighted,  for  he   loved  the 
Church,  and  he  thought  the  people  would  be  exceeding- 
ly gratified  with  the   addition  to  the  proper  ornaments 
of  the   church.     But  in  the  course  of  the  week  he  noticed 
the  people  looked  at  him  with  coldness,  and  that  there  was 
a  want  of  cordiality  in  the  greetings  of  his  parishioners, 
and  to  his  great  surprise  on  the  second  Sunday  he  found 
the  congregation  was  not   half  so  large  as   usual.     He 
went  on  Monday,  as  his  habit  was,  to  inquire  of  this  one 
and  that  one  what  was  the  reason  he  was  not  at  church, 
when  what  was  his  surprise  to  have  thtm  enquire  "what 
is  this  dreadful  thing — this  Puseyism."     One  man  in  the 
parish  had  snuflied  afar  off,  danger ;  he  had  read  the  pa- 
pers, and  had  got  an  idea   that   there   was   something 
popish  about  the  chair.     Without   going  to  the   clergy- 
man, he    went  to  one  and  the  other  saying — "Here  is 
Romanism   introduced  into  this   parish  ;"  a  few  of  the 
congregation  remained  away  from  the    church  because 
of  the   dreadful   introduction    of  popish   symbolism  or 
something  else.     The   report  of  the  minority  seems  to 
me  to  encourage  that  kind  ol   suspicion.     The  learned 
clerical  deputy  from  New  York,  has   said  that  there  are 
assumptions  underlying  the  report — the  assumption  of  a 
universal  agitation,  a  universal  alarm.     It   is  the  recog- 
nition of  that  assumption  which  I  should  object  to  having 
scattered  broadcast  in  all  the  parishes  of  this  land.    The 
clergy  of  the  Church  working  in  the  spirit  of  the  Master, 
in  simplicity  and  fidelity,  are  looking  to  the  General  Con- 
vention in  the  hope  that  nothing  will  be  done  to  disturb 
unnecessarily  the  minds  of  their  parishioners — to  disturb 
unnecessarily  the  confidence  of  their  parishioners  in  them. 
I  know  it  is  easy  to  say  that  the  minds  of  parishioners 
ought  to  be  disturbed.     In  this  great  city  of  New  York 
with  all  the  forces  that  can  be  brought  to  bear  to  render 
the  services  of  the  Church  more  beautiful  and  edifying' 
it  is  easy  to  say  that  the  people  in   the  country  ought  to 
be  alarmed  at  the  introduction  of  superstitious  and  vain 
ornaments.     But  tlie  great  difficulty  is  to  get  the  decen- 
cies of  worship  in  the  great  majority  of  the   parishes  of 
the  land.     Talk  about  the  danger  of  introducing  extrav- 
agancies in  the  Churcli  of  Cod,  when  the  great  mass  of 
people  in  this  country  are  devoted  body  and  soul  to  the 
worship  of  Manmion,  and  when  they  consider  so  much  as 
is  given  to  God  as  so  much  lost  I  1  am  not  afraid  of  ex- 


174 


travaganoiessomuch  as  I  am  afraid  of  the  spirit  of  infideli- 
ty ;  I  am  afraid  of  this  want  of  confidence  in  their  ap- 
pointed pastors.  I  am  afraid  of  these  things,  and  I  do 
say  that  there  is  nothing  more  important  for  us  to  guard 
against  than  unnecessarily  disturbing  the  confidence  and 
unsettling  the  minds  of  the  simple-hearted  people  who 
worship  God  in  sincerity  and  truth  all  over  the  land. 

Rev.  Dr.  DeKoven,  of  Wisconsin  :— I  would  like  to 
make  a  few  remarks  about  the  report  of  the  minority. 
The  first  point  to  which  I  wish  to  call  the  attention  of 
the  House  is  an  assumption  there  is  in  it  which  is  calcu- 
lated to  convey  at  least  a  wrong  impression.  It  is  said 
in  one  of  the  resolutions  "that  this  Convention  affection- 
ately urges  upon  all  who  have  to  do  with  the  ordering  of 
the  appointments  of  public  worship  that  they  abide  by 
the  traditions  and  ceremonies  of  this  American  Church  ; 
that  none  other  than  the  '  clerical  habits'  known  to  our 
fathers,  and  referred  to  by  the  House  of  Bishops  at  the 
General  Convention  of  1814,  as  appropriate  to  ministers 
ofiiciating  in  the  congregations,  '  bands,  gowns,  and  sur- 
plices,' with  their  customary  appendages,  cassocks  and 
black  stoles  be  provided."  Now,  the  impression  which 
that  resolution  gives  to  the  puljlic  is  that  in  the  year  1814, 
the  House  of  Bishops  made  some  resolutions  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  clerical  vestments.  It  is  not  so  at  all.  There 
came  up  to  the  House  of  Bishops  a  question  as  to  whether 
lay-readers  should  wear  any  clerical  vestments ;  and  the 
House  of  Bishops  decided  that  it  was  impi'oper  for  lay- 
readers  to  wear  certain  clerical  vestments,  and  they 
mentioned  certain  clerical  vestments  which  they  thought 
improper  for  lay -readers  to  wear,  and  those  are  simply 
bands,  gowns,  or  surplices.  They  mentioned  them  as 
clerical  vestments,  not  as  a  complete  list  of  clerical  vest- 
ments, for  there  is  nothing  said  about  either  stole  or 
cassock.  What  1  want  to  say  is  this :  the  House  of 
Bishops  was  not  intending  to  give  a  catalogue  of  clerical 
vestments.  I  feel  exceedingly  glad  that  this  minority 
did  refer  to  1814,  because  it  gives  me  an  opportunity  of 
reading  what  occurs  in  the  House  of  Bishops  immediate- 
ly under  this  matter.  [The  speaker  then  read  an  ex- 
tract to  the  elTect  that  the  House  of  Bishops  thought  it 
expedient  to  make  the  declaration  and  requested  the 
concurrence  of  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies 
therein,  that  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America  is  the  same  body  heretofore 
known  in  these  States  by  the  name  of  the  Church  of 
England.] 
'  Rev.  Dr.  Stubbs,  .of  New  Jersey  : — I  wish  to  make  a 
few  remarks,  to  call  attention  as  briefly  as  I  can  to  a  few 
general  principles  and  views  derived  from  the  history 
of  the  past.  We  read  in  the  Book  of  Genesis  that 
the  old  patriarch  Jacob  manifested  his  love  for  his 
youngest  child  by  clothing  him  with  a  coat  of  many 
colors  ;  that  his  brethren  envied  him  this  gift  of  parental 
love,  and  finding  him  in  the  field,  far  from  home  they 
stripped  him  of  his  coat  of  many  colors,  steeped  it  in 
blood,  and  with  a  refinement  of  cruelty  sent  it  to  their 


venerable  father,  and  said  to  him,  "  See  if  this  be  thy 
son's  coat."  Let  us  begin,  sir,  as  my  time  is  short, 
from  the  day  when  Augustine  went  on  his  mission  to 
England.  He  attempted  to  bring  the  British  Church 
into  perfect  conformity  with  the  Church  of  Rome.  Con- 
trary to  the  advice  of  the  great  Gregory  who  had  a 
larger  mind  and  a  larger  heart,  the  result  of  that  meas- 
ure was  the  destruction  of  those  Welsh  Bishops  and  the 
supremacy  of  Rome  in  Britain.  As  we  come  further 
down  in  history,  we  come  to  the  days  of  the  Reforma- 
tion. What  was  the  policy  of  Archbishop  Cranmer.  I 
have  no  special  reverence  for  Archbishop  Cranmer's 
memory,  but  he  was  a  man  nevertheless  of  large  and 
comprehensive  mind,  and  he  knew  he  could  not  be  the 
means  of  reforming  that  Church  unless  he  comprehend- 
ed in  it  large  classes  of  opinions,  views,  and  feeUngs. 
We  all  know  from  the  articles  of  religion  and  from  the 
liturgy,  he  endeavored  not  only  to  keep  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  but  also  to  bring  in  the  Lutherans  and 
the  Reformed  Protestants  abroad.     What  was  the  policy  rt>* 

of  Aretrfaishop  Cjanater-?  You  know  what  his  policy  r/^**^  T 
was.  In  the  seven  articles  he  was  determined  that  that 
diversity  should  not  exist ;  he  was  determined  to  bring 
the  Church  to  one  color,  and  that  color  was  blood. 
What  was  the  policy  of  Mary  ?  The  same.  What  was 
the  policy  of  Elizabeth  ?  A  larger  scheme,  yet  some- 
what contracted.  If  we  come  down  to  the  days  of 
Charles  I.,  we  find  there  Archbishop  Laud,  endeavoring 
with  all  his  talents,  all  his  large  heart,  bigoted  though 
you,  call  him,  endeavoring  to  introduce  a  varied  cere- 
mony in  the  Church.  What  was  the  policy  of  the  Purit- 
ans against  Archbishop  Laud  ?  It  was  this  coat  of  rigid 
uniformity,  and  that  coat  was  dipped  in  the  blood  of  that 
martyr.  Now,  let  us  come  down  to  the  days  of  Charles 
II.  Why  was  it  that  the  large  class  of  Puritans  as  they 
were  called  were  driven  from  the  Church?  How  did  it 
happen  that  men  like  Baxter  and  men  of  his  school  were 
kept  out  of  the  communion  of  the  Church  ?  It  was  ow- 
ing to  the  same  narrow  policy.  The  rulers  of  that  day 
in  Church  and  State  had  not  largeness  of  mind  enough 
to  comprehend  these  men  in  the  Church,  and  they  were 
di  iven  out  of  it ;  and  from  that  time  to  this  the  schism 
has  not  been  healed.  If  the  Church's  coat  was  not 
steeped  in  blood  we  know  it  was  rent  in  twain. 
Reference  has  been  made  to  the  days  of  the  House  of 
Hanover.  There  you  see  the  same  narrow-minded 
course  pursued.  The  consequence  was  the  banishment 
of  the  Wesleys,  and  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands  of 
their  followers,  all  of  whom  could  have  been  kept  in  the 
Church  if  the  rules  of  the  Church  had  been  comprehen- 
sive enough  to  embrace  them  all  in  the  Church's  fold. 
M^esley  never  meant  to  desert  his  mother  church.  I 
have  no  particular  reverence  to  that  man,  because  after 
all,  he  was  schismatic  in  heart.  But  he  could  have  been 
kept  in  the  Church  if  there  had  been  a  disposition  to  al- 
low her  coat  to  be  of  many  colors.  From  that  day  to 
this  there  always  has  been    the  same   result  j  wherever 


173 


you  have  made  the  attempt  to  insist  upou  rigid  uniform- 
ity, there  has  been  schism  or  thero  has  been  blood.  In 
the  formation  of  the  Chureh  in  this  country  the  same 
comprehensive  scheme  was  carried  out ;  it  was  the 
scheme  of  our  great  and  venerable,  if  he  may  be  so  call- 
ed, Bishop  White.  It  was  the  desire  to  comprehend  as 
far  as  he  could  all  within  the  Church's  fold  ;  and  h<'nce 
from  the  beginning  there  was  no  attempt  at  all  made  to 
legislate  upon  this  matter  of  vestments.  His  policy  must 
be  our  policy.  We  are  living  in  a  large  country.  If 
we  were  legislating  simply  for  the  interests  of  one  par- 
ticular State,  or  one  small  island,  then  you  nii;jht  talk  of 
making  laws  to  insist  upon  uniformity  in  minor  matters  ; 
but  we  are  living  in  a  country  in  which  there  arc  dis- 
tinct nationalities;  we  are  living  in  a  country  of  every 
variety  of  clime  and  soil ;  and  it  is  utterly  impossible  to 
legislate  for  this  country  upon  a  scheme  of  rigid  unifor- 
mity. It  is  a  small  thing  for  us  in  the  City  of  New 
York  to  attempt  a  set  of  rules  to  answer  for  this  grand 
country  extending  over  so  many  degrees  of  latitude  and 
embracing  men  of  every  clime,  nation,  and  tongue. 
Once  more  in  reference  to  this  Convention,  1  say  it  will 
make  a  fatal  mistake  if  it  attempts  to  pass  any  laws 
which  it  cannot  enforce,  and  that  it  is  not  the  province 
of  this  Convention  to  pass  these  regulations;  it  must  be 
left  to  the  different  dioceses. 

Dr.  Andrews  :— I  do  not  rise  to  make  a  speech  of 
ten  minutes  or  of  five  minutes — and  had  I  followed  my 
own  judgment  should  have  made  none  at  all,  for  three 
reasons,  first,  my  unwillingness  to  raise  a  (Jassandra-like 
voice  amidst  your  felicitations,  to  which  we  have  listened 
in  so  many  reports  and  speeches ;  second,  the  impossi- 
bility of  submitting  in  your  way  an  argument  upon  so 
momentous  a  subject  (more  so  beyond  all  comparison 
than  any  which  has  ever  come  before  us  fi'ora  the  be- 
ginning) within  the  space  of  ten  minutes,  which  would 
be  worth  listening  to.  As  for  example  in  the  report  of 
the  Russo-Greek  communication  which  we  have  heard 
and  passed  with  such  rapidity,  there  was  condensed 
more  partiality  in  statement  and  fallacy  in  argument 
than  could  have  been  adequately  replied  to  in  ten  hours. 
But  especially  do  1  hesitate  to  speak  lest  when  snme  of 
the  most  precious  interests  of  the  Church  are  trembling 
in  the  scale,  any  prejudice  should  spring  up  either  sec- 
tional, ecclesiastical,  or  personal,  through  which  injury 
instead  of  good  should  result  to  a  cause  which  I  am  so 
anxious  to  promote. 

But  sin(^e  a  justification  of  ritualism  has  been  attempt- 
ed by  citing-  alleged  deficiencies  of  order  m  Virginia  and 
Ohio,  I  must  answer  to  the  first  as  Dr.  Burr  has  already 
answered  to  the  second.  The  clerical  deputy  from  New 
York  tirlls  of  the  difference  fifty  years  ago  between  Vir- 
ginia and  old  Trinity  in  this  city,  but  that  difference  was 
as  the  dust  in  the  balance  when  compared  with  the  dif- 
ference between  old  Trinity  and  itetD  Trinrty.  Old 
Trinity  had  an  honest  table,  spoken  of  in  the  homilies  re- 
quired by  the  Church.     New  Trinity  a  solid  altar,  like 


that  with  super  altar  and  candles  in  presence  of  which 
we  have  been  sitting  for  three  weeks.  Again,  sir,  my  at- 
tention has  been  called  to  a  recent  plea  for  Ritualism 
in  which  as  an  offset  to  folly  it  was  said  that  a  Bishop  in 
a  neighboring  diocese  (meaning  Virginia)  went  into 
the  chancel  throwing  whip  and  hat  upon  the  communion 
table,  or  some  other  act  of  irreverence.  In  an  acquaint- 
ance of  forty  years  with  the  diocese,  I  never  heard  of 
anything  of  the  sort,  and  the  Bishop  himself  assures  me 
it  is  a  slander;  and  can  it  be  upon  information  of  this 
sort  that  the  report  of  the  majority  winds  up  with  a  see- 
saw resolution,  coming  down  with  greater  force  upon  the 
heads  of  those  opposed  to  the  Ritualists  than  upon  the 
Ritualists  themselves.  This  is  its  language,  *  *  »  — 
"  The  avoidance  of  the  dangers  of  irreverence  and  law- 
lessness on  the  one  hand  " — (intended  to  apply  to  some 
who  are  opposed  to  Ritualism — nobody  knows  who — ) 
"  and  of  extravagance  and  superstition  on  the  other.'' 
Now  sir  which  do  you  imagine  to  be  the  greater  offence 
— irreverence  and  lawlessness,  or  extravagance  and  super- 
stition ?  What  is  your  opinion  V  And  is  this  the  re- 
port which  conservative  men  of  the  Church  are  called 
upon  to  vote  for  ?  We  asked  for  bread  and  they  have 
given  us  a  stone.  Could  I  believe,  sir,  that  this  is  all 
that  can  now  be  obtained — that  after  such  prompt  and 
vigorous  discipline  exercised  here  for  a  ti'ivial  and 
doubtful  offence,  no  justice  could  be  had  upon  such 
abominations  as  are  exhibited  without  rebuke  in  St 
Alban's,  I  would  go  home  with  a  heavier  heart  than 
ever  before  during  a  connection  of  twenty  years  with 
the  councils  of  this  church- 

I  can  do  no  more  than  in  the  name  of  the  oldest  as  it 
is  one  of  the  largest  and  most  conservative  dioceses,  en- 
ter my  solemn  and  indignant  protest  against  Ritualism 
in  the  only  form  in  which  it  is  now  competent  to  enter 
it — and  that  is  by  voting  for  the  report  and  resolution 
of  the  minority,  instead  of  those  of  the  majority. 

Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin. — I  begin  with  saying  there  are 
two  reasons  for  which  I  might  feel  myself  called  upon  to 
speak — one  to  deliver  my  own  soul,  and  another  to  en- 
deavor to  attain  some  practical  end.  I  have  endeavored 
to  deliver  my  own  soul  outside  of  this  Convention;  but 
I  cannot  sit  here  and  hear  the  position  of  the  minority 
report  misrepresented,  as  it  seems  to  me  to  be  misrepre- 
sented, not  intentionally  of  course.  I  rise  to  speak  with 
very  much  of  the  feeling  of  my  reverend  brother  who 
has  spoken  before  me.  I  feel  it  is  a  most  important,  in- 
deed a  vital  question.  It  is  represented  to  us  as  if  this 
was  just  like  the  former  times,  when  improvements  were 
made  in  matters  connected  with  our  public  worship. 
Who  ever  objected  to  those  improvements?  Who  ever 
made  those  improvements  a  battle-cry.  There  were 
omissions  in  those  times.  Did  men  form  a  party  to  carry 
out  those  omissions,  and  make  them  the  law  of  the 
Church?  If  tliere  were  additions  made  by  this  and  that 
man  out  of  his  mere  whim  and  taste,  I  should  think  it 
scarcely  becoming  the  dignity  of  this  Convention  to  pro- 


176 


test  against  it.  I  think  tho  case  is  clearly  enough  before 
us  that  there  is  a  thing  that  all  the  world  knows  exists 
in  the  Church.  It  is  useless  to  pretend  that  it  is  the 
whim  of  this  or  that  man.  It  is  a  fact  known  in  this 
world  that  there  is  a  great  revolutionary  movement  at- 
tempted, and  here  and  there  are  the  signs  and  symptoms 
of  the  movement.  It  is  not  a  mere  sporadic  case;  it  is 
a  revolutionary  movement.  The  misrepresentation  is 
upon  another  point — that  this  is  a  movement  of  intoler- 
ance. We  have  had  here  speech  upon  speech  against 
intolerance,  and  against  attempting  by  law  to  enforce 
uniformity.  Nothing  of  the  sort  has  been  proposed. 
There  is  nothing  here  intolerant.  If  you  will  read  those 
resolutions  it  is  a  statement  of  opinion  in  one  case,  and 
an  affectionate  representation  in  another  case,  and  so  on 
as  expressing  the  mind  of  this  Convention.  What  I  feel 
most  concerned  about  here  is,  not  that  a  Church  may 
be  got  up  with  here  and  there  considerable  ritualism 
which  may  carry  a  few  into  the  Church  of  Rome  (I  be- 
lieve they  will  go  there  when  they  have  got  on  the  track 
so  far)  but  it  is  that  while  a  hundred  may  go  to  the 
Church  of  Rome,  being  educated  into  this  thing,  and 
finding  it  there  in  its  perfection,  thousands  and  tens  of 
thousands  will  be  hindered  from  coming  into  this  fold  of 
Christ's  Church.  There  it  is  that  I  stand,  and  there  I 
make  my  earnest  appeal  to  the  conservative  men  of  this 
Convention,  to  those  who  love  the  Church  in  its  prosper- 
ity, that  they  will  let  the  world  know  that  what  is  alleged 
to  be  the  tendency  and  condition  of  this  Church  is  not 
true.  That  is  what  I  ask;  it  is  the  appeal  that  I  make 
with  all  the  earnestness  I  have;  and  I  should  go  home 
with  sadness  upon  my  heart,  if  this  Convention  is  not 
ready,  if  there  are  not  conservative,  moderate,  earnest 
churchmen  enough  to  tell  the  world  that  we  are  not  gone 
with  the  extreme  ritualists  as  alleged;  and  I  should  feel 
relieved  and  thank  God  with  all  my  heart  if  something 
of  this  sort  could  be  done.  I  say  it  is  not  intolerance; 
it  is  affectionate  advice ;  it  is  the  expression  of  an  opin- 
ion which  will  go  out  before  the  world,  an  appeal  to  the 
conscience  of  every  minister  of  this  Church.  But  his 
liberty  is  not  impaired ;  it  is  not  proposed  to  impair  that 
liberty.  I  did  not  intend  to  make  a  speech,  but  did  wish 
to  correct  this  repeated  charge  of  intolerance,  and  to 
make  this  earnest  appeal. 

Rev.  C.  C.  PiNCKNEY. — The  very  effort  to  discuss  the 
comparative  merits  of  these  two  reports  necessarily  has 
brought  us  down  to  these  small,  and  low,  and  childish 
measures,  while  we  have  left  out  of  view  the  doctrines 
of  this  Church  involved  in  this  movement,  and  the  at- 
tempt against  the  doctrines  symbolized  by  this.  If  it 
was  merely  a  question  of  surplices  or  the  absence  of  sur- 
plices, I  should  refuse  to  say  any  thing  in  this  matter; 
but  these  are  merely  superficial — the  occasion  of  those 
erroneous  and  strange  doctrines  which  every  minister  of 
God  deprecates.  I  trust  that  I  can  tolerate  difference  of 
opinion.  Many  of  my  hearers  and  most  esteemed  friends 
are  men  from  whom  I  differ  very  much  on  all  the  promi- 


nent doctrines — men  who  belong  to  the  other  wing  of  the 
Church.  I  am  willing  to  yield  to  others  the  right  to  speak 
for  themselves.  I  desire  no  rigid  uniformity.  But  when- 
ever doctrines  are  introduced  into  the  Church,  or  at- 
tempted to  be  introduced,  which  I  believe  to  be  funda- 
mentally opposed  to  the  truth  and  the  Gospel  of  Jesus 
Christ,  and  inconsistent  with  the  very  existence  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  I  am  bound  as  a  minister 
of  that  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  to  lift  up  my  voice 
against  it,  and  by  all  honest  and  fair  means  to  do  what 
I  can  to  resist  it  and  drive  it  from  the  Church  of  God — 
the  Church  to  which  I  belong,  the  Church  in  which  all 
my  ancestors  have  belonged  and  have  lived  and  died. 
We  are  members  of  a  re-united  Church.  On  every  side 
I  have  heard  in  this  Convention  sentiments  which  have 
made  my  heart  rejoice,  and  the  right  hand  ot  fellowship 
has  been  extended  to  me  by  brethren  from  the  East,  and 
the  West,  and  the  North,  and  the  South.  We  represent 
a  united  Church.  That  is  the  reason  why  I  am  so  ear- 
nestly opposed  to  these  ritualistic  innovations,  because 
they  will  surely  prove  an  entering  wedge  which  will 
rend  asunder  this  Church.  If  we  desire  to  maintain 
peace  and  unity  we  must  drive  .iway  those  erroneous 
and  strange  doctrines  upon  which  Christians  differ  so 
widely  that  it  is  impossible  to  live  in  peace  and  harmony 
together  if  they  are  entertained  and  held.  The  resolu- 
tions of  the  minority  seem  to  me  to  condemn  them  per- 
haps as  strongly  as  it  is  wise  for  this  Church  now  to  do. 
I  do  not  ask  legislation,  but  an  expression  of  opinion. 
Let  it  go  forth  that  the  moral  weight  of  this  Convention 
is  against  these  things,  and  that  we  do  think  they  are 
contrary  to  the  acknowledged  discipline  and  worship 
prescribed  by  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States — that  they  are  contrary  to  the  doctrine 
and  established  history  of  the  Church  of  England  ever 
since  the  retbrmation.  And  does  not  history  teach  us 
that  from  the  third  century,  when  these  things  began  to 
be  introduced  into  the  Church,  they  were  the  cause  or 
the  effect  of  corruption  of  doctrine  in  worship  and  prac- 
tice ?  Does  not  experience  testify  that  they  have  been 
evil,  and  only  evil  continually '!  Thank  God  that  there 
is  a  revival  of  interest  in  the  worship  of  the  Church. 
It  seems  to  me  that  the  arguments  which  have  been  used 
with  reference  to  neglect  of  the  Church  in  days  past  ap- 
plied as  strongly  to  one  wing  as  the  other.  It  is  not  just 
to  go  against  one  portion  of  the  Church.  It  is  not  just 
to  bring  against  one  portion  those  things  which  the 
Church  was  compelled  to  wink  at.  I  beg  the  members 
of  this  Convention  to  consider  whether  we  can  not  upon 
such  general  principles  and  practices  harmonize  in  our 
ways  so  that  we  may  all  unite  as  brethren  of  a  great 
Church,  and  go  on  advancing  on  our  paths  of  usefulnes.s, 
prosperity,  purity,  and  peace.  I  must  say  that  my  ex- 
perience differs  from  that  of  the  delegate  from  Delaware. 
He  says  he  has  never  seen  any  thing  which  showed  any 
departure  from  our  worship.  I  have.  I  don't  speak  of 
St.   Alban's.     I   have    seen    that  in  many   Episcopal 


177 


Churches  in  the  last  two  or  three  months,  which  forbade 
my  worshipping  in  peace  and  comfort  there,  and  that  I 
must  be  compelled  to  decline  to  take  part  in  their  mode 
of  worship  if  they  expected  me  to  conform  to  what  I 
considered  their  unlawful  observances.  There  is  difJer- 
ence  of  worship  creeping  into  the  Church,  and  here  is 
an  opportunity  to  do  something  to  check  it  and  restrain 
it,  and  endeavor  to  produce  that  uniformity  in  Christian 
worship,  which  will  also  indicate  that  unity  of  doctrine 
and  faith  which  will  make  us  what  we  desire  to  be — one 
heart,  one  mind,  one  united  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
— desiring  to  maintain  the  truths  which  our  ancestors 
have  transmitted  to  our  care,  and  which  I  trust  in  God 
we  may  have  grace  and  wisdom  to  communicate  to  those 
who  may  come  after. 

Rev.  C.  B.  Wyatt,  of  California. — When  all  has 
been  said  and  done,  will  we  not  be  likely  to  find  that 
the  one  common  ground  is  that  which  has  been  recom- 
mended in  each  report,  referring  the  whole  authority  in 
matters  of  ritual  .is  of  old  to  the  ordinary.  It  would  be 
found  immediately  that  resolutions  which  were  to  go  into 
particulars  with  respect  to  this  matter  could  not  be  made 
thorough  enough  to  answer  the  purpose,  even  though  it 
were  only  the  subject  of  the  ritual  that  we  teach;  but  if 
it  go  beyond,  as  suggested  by  the  reverend  gentleman 
who  has  taken  his  seat,  and  we  attempt  to  rule  also  as  to 
matters  of  doctrine,  there  would  be  no  end  of  such  leg- 
islation. It  has  been  shown  already  that  a  resolution  like 
those  proposed  would  not  be  strong  enough  to  bring  a 
clergyman  to  trial  thereunder  for  any  breach  of  such  a 
resolution.  That  has  already  been  shown.  I  believe 
were  it  a  canon  that  we  now  proposed  to  make,  it  might 
be  equally  ineffective.  Suppose  a  clergyman  brought 
into  an  attitude  of  collision  with  his  bishop  on  this  sub- 
ject; it  is  for  the  bishop  after  all  to  interpret  and  under- 
stand those  resolutions.  I  call  the  attention  of  gentle- 
men to  the  ordination  vows  which  we  all  take,  and  which 
every  clergyman  regards  as  solemn  and  as  bindin"  as 
any  vow  he  can  make.  To  what  does  the  ordination 
vow  pledge  our  bishops?  To  the  canons  and  rules  of 
this  Convention  ?  It  will  be  found  that  the  only  refer- 
ence to  such  canons  is  as  they  designate  the  supreme 
authority  to  whom  we  owe  obedience;  and  that  last 
vow  is  simply  that  we  will  always  render  obedience 
to  the  constituted  authority  set  over  us,  and  follow  their 
godly  admonitions.  Let  it  be  supposed  for  argument's 
sake  that  we  might  have  a  fanatical  bishop — one  disposed 
to  override  all  the  sentiments  of  his  people — who  should 
prohibit  every  clergyman  from  bowing  at  the  announce- 
ment of  the  holy  name  of  our  Lord  and  Master  in  re- 
citing the  Creed,  I  would  have  every  clergyman  in  that 
diocese  humbly  and  readily  obey  the  bishop  in  that;  it 
would  be  better  for  the  discipline  of  the  mind,  and  better 
for  the  order  of  the  Church  throughout  the  land  that 
they  should  thus  humbly  and  quietly  obey  the  bishop. 
It  would  be  better  for  that  bishop,  rather  than  that  the 
practice  of  his  clergy  should  differ  from  his  recommend- 

23 


ation,  that  he  should  go  to  his  private  devotions  thinkin; 
that  every  clergyman  in  his  dioceso  had  refrained  fron. 
doing  what  the  emotion  of  their  hearts  prompted  and 
the  teachings  of  their  faith  had  inclined  them  to — had 
refrained  simply  because  compelled  by  him.  Before  he 
had  passed  the  night-watches  he  would  be  a  better  bishop. 

It  would  be  perfectly  impracticable  to  enforce  any 
rule  of  this  kind  so  as  to  secure  anj'  thing  like  good  order 
throughout  the  country.  Let  the  authority  in  this  matter 
rest  where  constitutionally  by  the  laws  and  regulations 
of  this  Church  it  now  rests.  No  man  who  understands 
what  is  meant  by  the  Episcopal  Church  can  challenge 
that  position.  Demonstrate  that  this  responsibility  rests 
with  the  bishop — that  for  every  departure  from  the  regular 
order  of  the  Church  in  that  diocese  the  bishop  is  respon- 
sible— and  then  it  remains  only  that  our  Right  Reverend 
Fathers  in  Council  assembled  shall  agree  among  them- 
selves as  to  what  liberty  is  to  be  allowed  to  ensure  such 
a  degree  of  uniformity  throughout  the  dioceses,  and  ter- 
ritories, and  jurisdictions  in  the  United  States  as  may  be 
compatible  with  the  doctrine,  and  worship,  and  discipline 
of  the  Church.  And  more  than  that  no  good  man 
desires. 

Rev.  Dr.  F.  D.  Hdntington,  of  Massachusetts : — We 
are  gradually  approaching  a  vote  on  this  question. 
But  the  way  is  not  clear.  What  is  it  precisely  that 
we  propose  to  do  by  that  vote  V  Undoubtedly  our  par- 
ticular business  here  is  legislation.  Are  we  asked  then, 
by  either  of  the  two  reports  lying  before  us,  to  perform 
a  legislative  act  V  On  the  contrary,  it  is  not  presumed, 
in  any  quarter,  that  the  adoption  of  either  one  of  these 
reports  will  havt  the  force  of  law,  will  control  any- 
body's mind,  or  regulate  anybody's  practice.  In  fact 
one  of  them  expressly  affirms  that  the  enactment  of  any 
canon  at  present  on  the  subject  of  ritual  would  be  "un- 
wise and  inexpedient."  We  are  therefore  not  only  about 
to  effect  nothing  in  the  way  of  creating  an  obligation,  or 
bringing  about  a  practical  result,  but  the  resolutions  do 
not  even  contemplate  any  measure  at  all ;  they  do  not 
so  much  as  initiate  an  investigation,  or  raise  a  committee 
of  inquiry  or  consultation.  Certainly  we  are  not  expect- 
ed in  this  House  to  issue  a  theological  treatise,  or  to 
originate  a  rubric.  All  we  shall  do  by  adopting  either 
of  the  reports  is  to  express  an  opinion.  We  shall  notify 
the  world  outside  what  we,  a  number  of  individual  cler- 
gymen and  laymen,  enough  of  us  to  make  up  a  majority 
on  this  particular  day  of  this  particular  year,  think  about 
ritual.  The  ground  is  made  narrower  yet.  For  we  are 
obliged  to  say  what  we  think,  on  a  matter  so  vast, 
so  complicated,  so  far-reaching,  involving  so  much 
careful  scholarship  and  so  much  discriminating  thought, 
— in  one  of  two  prepared  documents  brought  in  here, 
the  one  by  a  majority  and  the  other  by  a  minority  of 
the  Committee  on  Canons.  It  is  no  disparagement  of 
their  authors,  or  of  the  excellent  language  they  have 
chosen  in  the  composition  of  those  i)apers,  if  we  hesitate 
to  take  just  these  words,  and  all  of  them,  and  no  other, 


178 


for  the  utterance  of  our  individual  opinion — of  what  we 
think,  or  opine — even  on  the  external  habits  of  Chris- 
tian worsliip.  There  is  a  great  difference  between  the 
compact  terms  of  canon  law  and  the  more  diffuse  con- 
tents of  declaratory  statements,  largely  rhetorical,  like 
these.  If  the  members  of  the  House  consider  it  com- 
patible with  its  dignity,  or  what  they  were  sent  here 
for,  to  issue  to  the  public  some  inefficient  generally  of 
this  sort,  necessarily  leaving  the  whole  condition  just 
as  it  was  before,  I  am  sure  1  shall  interpose  no  objection, 
although  for  my  own  part  I  would  rather  have  nothing 
to  do  with  it. 

If,  however,  being  shut  up  to  these  two  declarations, 
I  am  obliged  to  say  what  I  think  in  the  words  of  one  of 
them,  then — though  I  really  have  no  idea  that  the  pub- 
lic cares  a  straw  what  my  opinion  is — I  must  choose 
that  one  which  most  nearly  expresses  my  own  mind. 
In  both  the  reports  I  find  some  things  with  which  I 
heartily  agree,  and  other  things  which  do  not  commend 
themselves  to  my  judgment  as  well.  Let  us  come  to  the 
vital  point.  It  is  found  especially  in  the  fourth  resolu- 
tion of  the  minority  repoi  t,  and  I  confine  myself  to  that. 
The  resolution  reads  as  follows : 

"Resnlved,  That  in  the  judgment  of  this  Convention, 
the  House  of  Bishops  concurring — the  burning  of  lights 
in  the  order  for  the  Holy  Communion,  the  burning  of 
incense,  reverences  to  the  holy  table,  or  to  the  eleaients 
thereon,  the  elevation  of  the  elements,  making  the  sign 
of  the  cross,  except  when  prescribed  in  the  Rubric  in 
and  during  divine  service,  or  the  celebration  of  the 
Lord't  iSupper,  are  innovations  on  our  mode  of  conduct- 
in<T  public  worship,  offend  against  the  common  order  of 
the  Chiirch,  and  wound  the  consciences  of  many  of  its 
true  and  loving  members." 

Now  I  like  that  very  well,  because  it  speaks  out 
frankly  and  plainly,  saying  just  what  is  meant  to  be 
said,  and  giving  us  something  palpable  and  tangible. 
In  place  of  this,  I  find  in  the  majority  report,  on  the 
third  page,  an  elaborate  sentence,  drawn  with  painstak- 
ing and  evident  deliberation,  aiming  apparently  to  inti- 
mate something  good,  without  quite  saying  it.  I  think  I 
understand  what  it  is  that  is  not  said ;  but  whether  I 
know  what  is  intimated,  I  am  not  so  sure.  The  lan- 
gua^e  of  the  minority  resolution  is  preferable  to  me,  be 
cause  on  the  special  point  where  we  can  be  expected  to 
utter  any  opinion  to  any  purpose  whatever,  it  is  explicit. 
Trying  to  make  my  practice  accord  with  my  thinking, 
in  my  parochial  ministration,  I  find  myself  always  omit- 
ting, as  a  matter  of  course,  because  I  think  they  ought 
to  be  omitted,  all  these  things  mentioned.  And  so, 
being  called  upon  to  express  an  opinion  here,  I  want  to 
express  it  in  some  definite  form  of  words ;  that  is,  to  say 
something,  and  not  merely  to  seem  to  say  something 
under  the  disguise  of  a  handsome  circumlocution. 

It  would  be  easy  to  give  rea.sons  for  this  opinion. 
What  is  affirmed,  in  the  last  part  of  the  resolution,  of 
the  practices  specified,  appears  to  me  to  be  an  obvious 
truth,  without  exaggeration,  and  undeniaUe.  Besides 
all  those    practices,   as    1  beheve  without   the     least 


doubt,  (unless  the  first  be  an  exception)  sustain  an 
objectionable  relation  to  a  syst'em  of  "erroneous  and 
strange  doctrine."  They  are  of  the  nature  of  symbols. 
Symbols  are  as  truly  a  part  of  language  or  expression 
as  words  are,  and  sometimes  far  more  effective.  They 
are  signs  of  thought  and  feeling.  Visible  acts  and 
things  made  a  part  of  Divine  Service  in  the  Church  of 
God,  enter  into  the  sphere  of  the  Ecclena  docens, 
and  the  authority  of  the  Church  is  responsible  for  them. 
I  know  very  well  that  it  is  denied  that  these  acts  enu- 
merated do  symbolize  false  doctrine.  I  would  judge  no 
man's  mind,  and  by  no  means  coerce  or  restrain  any 
man's  lawful  liberty,  in  respect  to  all  those  variations  in 
worship  which  do  not  touch  one  or  other  of  the  three 
great  universal  notes  and  essentials  of  the  Church  Catho- 
lic,— creed,  ministry  and  sacraments.  But  we  are  deal- 
ing here  with  opinions,  and  are  required  to  express  our 
own.  It  seems  to  me  nugatory  and  useless  to  deny  thatj 
taken  together — as  men  will  practically  take  them — 
these  usages  are  symbolic  and  by  inevitable  associa- 
tions, related  to  a  system  of  teaching  not  primitive,  not 
Scriptural,  not  true.  And  it  is  a  familiar  principle  in 
Christian  ethics  that  in  estimating  things  morally,  we 
must  take  them  in  their  relations  as  well  as  in  them- 
selves. 

[What  is  wanted,  unquestionably,  above  all  else,  in 
this  vexed  subject,  is  that  the  Church,  in  her  wisdom, 
should  draw  a  fixed  line  between  those  ritual  customs 
which  do  and  those  which  do  not  signify  error  of  doc- 
truie ;  for  then  many  harmless  things  which  the  popular 
mind  now  confounds  with  evils  forbidden  would  be 
cleared  of  the  complication,  and  would  be  done,  if  at  all, 
with  an  honest  conscience,  while  other  things,  beyond 
that  line,  could  then  be  resisted  with  a  united  front,  and 
with  tenfold  power,  because  with  confidence  and  by  au- 
thority. No  such  line  is  yet  formally  drawn ;  no  such 
stake,  beyond  which  "tendencies"  must  not  go,  is  yet 
set ;  and  meantime  we  must  decide  and  act,  each  for 
himself,  with  the  Prayer  Book  in  his  hand,  with  due  def- 
erence to  the  ordinary's  direction,  and  to  the  "common 
order."  For  one,  I  have  no  question  on  which  side  of 
such  a  line,  in  a  true  directory,  these  practices  enumera- 
ted in  the  resolution,  would  be  found  to  lie.j 

Another  reason  why  the  matters  mentioned  in  this 
fourth  resolution  seem  proper  to  be  mentioned  as  they 
are,  is  that  they  do  not,  as  I  conceive,  belong  to  us  as  a 
reformecl  branch  of  the  Church, — the  Reformed  Catho- 
lic Church  if  you  please, — but  reformed.  There  was  a 
reformation.  It  had  a  history  and  documents.  There 
were  reforming  men.  Those  men  comprehended,  I 
think,  the  whole  issuse  which  drained  the  blood  out  of 
their  veins  and  burnt  up  their  bodies.  They  knew  the 
system  they  fought  against,  in  the  struggle  that  cost  such 
trrand  martyrdoms.  They  were  scholars  as  well  as  he- 
roes, and  knew  the  doctrine  and  worship  of  the  early 
Church,  at  least  as  well  as  we  know  it.  They  knew  it 
well  enough  to  overthrow  the  Romish  assumptions  and 


179 


the  Tridentine  doctors,  in  the  historical  argument.  Now, 
as  I  read  (he  records  of  that  Reformation,  in  tlie  succes- 
sive revisions  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  in  the 
Royal  Injunctions,  in  the  Articles  of  Visitation,  in  the 
biographies  of  the  men  and  their  grand  debates  with 
both  Papist  and  Puritan,  all  along  from  1534  to  the 
days  of  James,  it  becomes  plain  enough  to  me  that  these 
practices  here  mentioned  were  among  the  things  which, 
on  the  whole,  the  Anglican  Reformers  meant  to  put 
away ;  that  while  they  were  never  mistaken  for  the 
false  doctrine  of  the  Sacrament  to  which  they  pointed, 
they  were  seen  to  have  such  relations  to  it  that  if  that 
doctrine  was  to  be  rejected  these  accompaniments  and 
signs  must  go  with  it;  that,  gradual  and  irregular  as  the 
progress  of  purification  was,  it  was  as  clearly  Protestant 
in  respect  to  these  external  signs  as  it  was  primitive  and 
comprehensive  in  respect  to  all  its  positive  and  Catholic 
principles;  that  it  involved  in  its  whole  character  and 
import  the  removal  from  the  Church  of  both  the  outward 
and  the  inward  part  of  that  dogma  of  Transubstantia- 
tion  which  had  no  place  or  appearance  in  it  before  the 
eighth  century,  and  no  sanction  of  Council  till  the  last 
Lateran,  early  in  the  thirteenth.  Nor  can  it  be  claimed 
that  the  subsequent  history  of  the  English  Church, 
making  full  allowance  for  the  known  distinction  between 
Parish  Churches  on  the  one  hand  and  Cathedral  and 
Collegiate  Churches  on  the  other,  leads  to  any  different 
conclusion, — as  the  recent  decisions  of  the  ecclesiastical 
courts  and  commission,  including  that  of  Sir  R.  Philli- 
more,  will  show.  Not  all  the  matters  here  reprehended 
are  there  prohibited ;  nor  are  the  English  decisions  a 
final  rule  for  our  Church  in  this  country.  But  the 
principle  is  fairly  recognized.  And  the  "common  or- 
der" of  the  American  Church  hitherto  is  a  testimony 
still  more  conclusive.  [Were  there  space  for  it,  I  should 
be  glad  to  give  some  completeness  to  these  observations 
by  referring  briefly  to  other  reasons,  as  that  the  inno- 
vations in  question  do  very  extensively  and  unhealthily 
agitate  the  minds  of  our  people ;  that,  for  the  present 
they  intensify  needlessly  the  prejudices  that  oppose  us 
without,  preventing  hundreds  from  seriously  examinin"- 
the  claims  of  our  Church  on  their  belief  and  acceptunce, 
while  they  do  not  move  Rome  towards  us  a  jot ;  that 
they  create  suspicion  and  distrust  in  considerable  num- 
bers of  the  laity,  cooling  their  zeal,  checking  their  lib- 
erahty  and  reducing — unreasonably  as  1  think, — the 
treasuries  of  some  of  our  noblest  and  purest  charities ; 
that  they  aggravate  party-divisions;  that  they  disturb 
sometimes  the  simplicity  and  cordiality  of  that  tie  be- 
tween the  Pastor  and  his  flock  which  is  the  blessed  con- 
dition of  half  our  prosperity ;  that  they  draw  ofi'  the 
attention  and  the  conversation  of  thousands  among  us 
too  much  not  only  from  the  weightier  matters  of  the 
law  but  from  the  graces  of  Christian  spirituality,  from 
the  fundamental  realities  of  a  holy  character  and  the 
disciple's  personal  communion  with  Christ  his  Saviour 
dwelling  in  his  heart  by  faith ;  that  they  diffuse  through 


our  congregations  a  too  prevalent  atmosphere  of  criti- 
cism, conjecture,  gossip  and  fault  finding,  one  way  and 
another,  on  things  which,  after  all  that  can  be  claimed 
lor  them,  pertain  assuredly  rather  to  the  manners  than 
to  the  inward  life  and  power  of  the  Body  of  our  Lord 
and  the  Everlasting  Faith.  It  is  the  distinctive  ideas  of 
the  Church, — her  doctrine,  her  truth,  her  Churchly 
work,  her  humane  and  merciful  activities,  her  training 
and  her  ministries,  that  need  our  chief  concern  and  our 
loyal,  enthusiastic,  united  support.  With  a  worthy  con- 
sciousness of  her  Divine  commission  just  as  she  is,  and 
of  the  boundless  capacities  of  blessing  that  lie  undevel- 
oped in  her  breast  and  in  her  hands,  and  with  a  more 
reverential  and  cordial  use  of  the  rich  resources  of  lit- 
urgical impression  and  common  worship  thai  are  con- 
tained in  her  system  and  sanctioned  by  her  rubrics,  who 
can  measure  the  religious  influence  and  the  moral  glory 
of  her  history  in  the  years  to  come  ?  ] 

Mr.  Fairbanks,  of  Tennessee : — I  think  there  is  a 
large  body  of  conservative  Churchmen  in  this  Conven- 
tion who  desire  to^act  upon  this  question  according  to  the 
best  light,  and  who  desire  moreover  to  do  nothing  in  rei- 
erence  to  this  question  which  will  in  any  way  jeopar- 
dize or  endanger  the  interests  of  the  Church.  It  seems 
to  me  that  the  Committee  on  Canons  have  departed 
from  their  uniform  conservative  character.  After  they 
have  reported  upon  the  question  that  they  deem  it  inex- 
pedient to  pass  any  canon,  they  then  go  on  with  a  dec- 
laration on  the  subject ;  and  I  think  the  declaration  of  the 
majority  is  as  objectionable  as  the  resolutions  of  the  mi- 
nority, for  both  are  declarations  in  certain  directions. 
I  believe  it  would  be  more  sat isl'actory  to  the  large  body 
of  this  Church,  if  that  portion  of  the  resolution  which 
they. introduce  on  the  third  page  were  stricken  out  after 
the  words  "  would  be  unwise  and  inexpedient,"  down  to 
the  words  "  that  in  all  matters  doubtful,  for  the  avoid- 
ance of  unseemly  disputes  and  contradictory  practices, 
which  tend  neither  to  good  name  nor  to  godliness,  ref- 
erence should  be  made  to  the  Ordinary,  and  no  changes 
should  be  made  against  the  godly  counsel  and  judgment 
of  the  Bishop."  I  think  that  would  be  in  accordance 
with  the  general  conservative  character  of  this  Church, 
that  it  is  inexpedient  to  enact  a  canon  or  make  a  decla- 
ration. Leave  the  matter  in  the  hands  of  the  respective 
Bishops  for  them  to  regulate  under  the  sense  of  respon- 
sibility. I  think  this  view  of  it  would  be  far  more  satisfac- 
tory to  the  great  majority.  There  is  an  agitation  of  Ritu- 
alism'which  we  can  not  ignore  ;  but  whence  does  it 
come  ?  I  venture  to  add  that  if  you  would  suppress  the 
Church  newspapers,  you  would  suppress  nine-tenths  of 
the  agitation.  The  agitation  comes  from  these  great 
centres — Philadelphia  and  New  I'ork.  Go  down  into 
South-western  or  North-western  dioceses  and  you  find 
Churchmen  are  too  busy  to  attend  to  Ritualism.  They 
are  busy  drawing  in  the  chddren,  carrying  on  their 
rightful  business  and  avocations ;  and  they  are  not  en- 
tering   into  this   discussion.      It  seems  to  me   that  un- 


180 


due  importance  is  given  ^to  the  subject — that  a  single 
parish  in  one  of  the  leading  States  is  able  at  present 
to  set  the  whole  country  on  fire  by  some  peculiar  usage 
in  that  Cburch.  The  other  day  1  saw  in  a  leading 
newspaper  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  a  statement  to 
show  that  the  thing  was  spreading,  and  it  named 
how  many  churches — three :  one  in  the  city  of  New 
York,  one  in  the  Diocese  of  Pittsburgh,  and  a  little  affair 
in  the  diocese  which  I  represent — Tennessee.  If  the  first 
two  have  no  more  significance  or  importance  than  the 
third,  I  would  say  that  this  Convention  is  wasting  its 
time  miserably  iu  giving  any  attention  whatever  to  so 
small  a  matter. 

Rev.  Mr.  Spaulding,  of  Pittsburgh — moved  to 
amend  the  report  of  the  minority  by  striking  out  the 
second  and  third  resolutions.  He  did  not  see  that  they 
added  anything  to  the  force  of  the  report,  and  thought 
that  they  were  objectionable  to  some  members  of  the 
House. 

Rev.  Dr.  Pincknet,  of  Maryland : — The  catholicity 
of  the  Church  causes  me  to  tremble  on  the  threshold  of 
any  such  discussion  as  has  occupied  us.  It  was  made  to 
be  the  home  of  all ;  and  I  think  we  ought  to  pause  and 
calmly  consider  before  we  adopt  any  course  of  action 
which  would  have  a  tendency  to  unfit  the  body  to  be 
the  home  ot  all.  It  seems  to  me  I  must  choose  one  or 
the  other  of  those  reports  ;  and  I  share  very  much  the 
views  expressed  by  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts. 
It  is  a  mere  proclamation  of  opinion,  and  I  would  vast- 
ly prefer  not  to  be  called  upon  to  express  my  own  indi- 
vidual opinion  in  a  body  where  I  have  an  oflBcial  posi- 
tion. I  do  not  myself  approve  of  burning  lights  or  in- 
cense, or  of  reverence  to  the  elements  on  the  altar.  It 
seems  to  me,  however,  that  with  pre-eminent  caution 
and  wisdom,  the  majority  have  met  the  difficulty,  for 
they  declare  that "  so  far  as  may  be,  steadfast  adherence 
to  such  vestments,  ceremonies,  practices,  and  ornaments, 
as,  by  reason  of  long-continued  use  or  by  authority,  are 
recognized  as  properly  belonging  to  this  Church,  avoid- 
ing errors,  either  by  excess  or  by  defect."  My  objection 
to  the  fourth  resolution  ofl'ered  by  the  minority  is  that 
while  they  have  eyes  to  see  defects  on  one  side,  there 
is  nothing  whatever  said  of  the  defects  on  the  other 
side.  I  have  rejoiced  in  being  permitted  to  serve 
the  altars  of  the  Church  according  to  my  honest  convic- 
tions of  what  is  due  to  the  Church  and  the  people  over 
whom  I  have  been  placed,  without  being  called  upon  to 
express  any  opinion  or  invoke  any  discipline  on  eithei^side 
of  the  extremes.  I  have  only  to  speak  by  report;  I  have 
never  been  where  things  are  practised  that  I  deem 
wrong.  If  we  are  to  vote  and  elect  between  these  two, 
the  report  of  the  majority  comes  as  nearly  to  the  point 
as  is  possible.  I  should  be  sorry  to  vote  against  the  mi- 
nority because  then  it  would  seem  I  was  voting  against 
an  expression  of  my  personal  opinion.  The  bill  of  in- 
dictment is  so  indefinite  I  should  not  like  to  express  an 
opinion  about  it.  I  hope  if  we  are  compelled  to  adopt 
either,  we  shall  take  the  majority  report. 


Rev.  Mr.  Dashiell,  of  Maryland : — hoped  the  whole 
matter  would  be  indefinitely  postponed. 

Rev.  Wra.  C.  Williams,  of  Georgia : — It  seems  to 
me  we  ought  to  pause.  We  cannot  regulate  this  mat- 
ter by  canons,  still  less  by  resolutions.  All  our  laws 
so  far  as  these  matters  are  concerned  must  be  in  the 
rubrics  or  they  are  null  and  void.  If  you  adopt  your 
resolutions  what  will  be  the  effect  ?  Will  any  man  who 
is  in  the  habit  of  adopting  these  things  condemned  in 
both  reports,  cease  them  ?  We  all  know  perfectly  well 
that  no  man  will  change  at  all  when  he  claims  that  he 
is  right,  and  that  he  does  it  from  conscientious  motives. 
If  gentlemen  are  ready  to  act,  let  us  put  it  in  the  Prayer- 
Book  ;  make  your  rubrics,  and  then  you  can  say  to  a 
man.  You  shall  not  transcend  the  laws  of  the  Church. 
Until  this  Church  is  prepared  to  make  her  rubrics,  it 
seems  to  me  strange  to  be  sending  forth  resolutions  ab- 
solutely worthless.  I  have  no  sympathy  with  any  move- 
ments of  the  sort.  In  the  diocese  which  I  have  the 
honor  to  represent,  we  know  nothing  of  such  practices, 
and  we  expect  to  know  nothing.  These  matters  must 
be  regulated  if  at  all  by  the  dioceses  in  which  these 
practices  are  found.  Pass  your  resolution  to-day,  and 
what  willjbe  the  efl'ect  in  the  Diocese  of  New  York  ?  Will 
it  give  peace  ?  or  restrain  any  man  ?  Not  at  all.  I  there- 
fore second  the  resolution  to  postpone. 

Mr.  Wm.  Cornwall,  of  Kentucky  : — The  reverend 
gentleman  from  South  Carolina,  put  the  true  question 
first ;  it  is  a  question  of  doctrine.  If  it  is  a  question  of 
doctrine,  my  judgment  is  that  the  canon  which 
was  passed  at  this  session  and  to-day  ratified  by  the 
House  of  Bishops,  is  sufficient  to  regulate  that  great 
and  important  subject.  If  it  be  a  question  of  rites  and 
ceremonies  I  should  concur  with  the  report  of  the  mi- 
nority, even  in  the  fourth  resolution,  with  the  exception 
made  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  from  Massachusetts.  But  there 
are  decisions  in  the  English  Courts,  which  I  under- 
stand go  against  the  spirit  of  this  resolution.  There  is 
one  exception;  I  believe  it  to  be  improper  to  burn  any  in- 
cense but  when  the  sacrifice  was  which  typified  the 
great  sacrifice.  T  think  that  this  Convention  should 
hesitate  before  deciding  unlawful  the  things  which  have 
been  decided  lawful  in  the  English  Courts.  Then,  while 
I  cordially  adopt  the  entire  report  of  the  minority  of  the 
committee — and  they  do  not  differ  from  the  majority  so 
far  as  I  can  see  except  in  the  enumeration  in  the  fourth 
resolution — while  I  adopt  it  entirely,  yet  there  are 
statements  in  it  which  I  could  not  subscribe  to  as  being 
true,  and  therefore  would  not  vote  for  them  under  any 
circumstances  unless  I  had  the  privilege  of  claiming  that 
rites  and  ceremonies  should  not  be  in  all  ages  alike. 
We  know  from  the  scripture  that  the  first  ritual  was 
that  the  passover  should  be  eaten  with  the  staff  in  hand, 
all  ready  for  the  journey,  and  everything  as  if  the  people 
were  in  haste.  We  know  our  Lord  kept  the  passover 
with  the  staff  in  hand  but  reclining.  There  is  an  in- 
stance that  rites  and  ceremonies,   need  not  be  always 


1«1 


alike.  Our  thirty -fourth  article  says  :  "It  is  not  necessary 
that  traditions  and  ceremonies  be  in  all  places  one  or 
utterly  like  ;  for  at  all  times  they  have  been  divers,  and 
may  be  changed  according  to  the  diversity' oC  countries, 
times,  and  men's  manners,  so  that  nothing  be  oi dained 
against  God's  word." 

Rev.  Dr.  Hare — said  lie  did  not  remember  any  place 
in  the  scripture  where  the  manner  of  eating  the  pass- 
over  was  made  a  standing  ordinance'  for  the  people  of 
Israel. 

Mr.  Cornwall  : — I  have  only  to  say  with  reference 
to  that,  all  the  commentators  and  historians  are  against 
my  reverend  friend.  The  Israelites  ate  the  passover  in 
haste,  and  when  they  entered  the  promised  land,  thej  ate 
it  reclining.  Furthermore  they  ate  it  with  bread  and  bitter 
herbs,  but  subsequently  added  the  wine  ;  there  is  anoth- 
er change.  It  was  declared  that  the  Israelites  should  not 
go  uncovered  into  the  presence  of  the  Almighty ;  yet 
St.  Paul  declares  that  you  shall  not  be  covered  in  the 
presence  of  the  Almighty  ;  that  if  a  man  is  covered  it 
is  wrong,  but  a  woman  shall  have  her  hair  as  a  cover- 
ing. I  mention  these  things  to  show  that  the  report  of 
the  minority  is  eiToneous  in  the  statement  of  historical 
fact.  I  cannot  vote  it  is  true.  But  if  you  ask  me  to 
vote  upon  a  doctrinal  question,  I  do  not  know  that  there 
would  be  any  difference  of  opinion  between  my  views 
and  those  of  the  minority.  Uoth  of  these  reports  con- 
demn Ritualism.  So  do  I.  I  should  call  on  the  proper 
authorities  of  the  Church  to  enforce  the  discipline  and 
purify  the  Church.  We  cannot  do  it  by  this  Conven- 
tion, by  any  resolution.  We  do  not  propose  to  do  it. 
The  unmeaning  rite  or  ceremony  is  nothing  ;  but  the 
false  doctrine  tliat  is  pointed  at  can  not  be  reached  by 
denying  the  ceremony.  I  have  heard  it  from  the  high- 
est authority,  that  there  are  churches  where  all  the  false 
doctrines  of  the  Roman  mass  are  taught.  How  can  you 
remove  false  doctrine  by  removing  some  article  of  fui-ni- 
ture.  I  do  not  think  it  would  be  wise  in  this  Conven- 
tion to  go  indirectly  into  that  point. 

Rev.  Mr.  Stringfellow  : — 1  have  no  personal  interest 
whatever  in  the  issues  that  are  at  stake,  only  so  far  as 
the  good  of  the  Church  is  concerned.  I  would  prefer 
that  the  gentleman  should  withdraw  the  motion  to  lay 
on  the  table,  that  1  might  have  the  liberty  of  offering  a 
substitute  for  the  report  of  both  the  majority  and  the 
minority,  in  order  that  the  House  might  distinctly  say 
whether  it  would  meet  the  wishes  of  some  of  them,  be 
cause  I  am  satisfied  that  there  are  things  in  both  reports 
objectionable  to  many  members  of  the  House.  There 
aie  things  in  the  majority  and  the  minority  reports 
which  I  am  not  willing  to  vote  for.  If  I  am  simply 
compelled  to  decide  detween  them,  I  ^all  have  to  vote 
for  the  majority  report.  If  the  gentleman  will  with- 
draw his  motion,  I  would  like  to  read  the  substitute. 

The  President  : — You  can  otter  it  as  an  amendment. 

The  proposed  substitute  was  then  read. 

On  motion  the  House  then  adjourned  for  the  day. 


NINETEENTH    DAY. 

Wednesday,  October  22d,  186H. 
The  House  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Morning  Prayer  was  said  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Clarke,  of 
Georgia,  and  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hanson,  of  Alabama. 

The  Benediction  was  pronounced  by  the  Bishop  of 
Iowa. 

On  motion  of  Rev.  Dr.  Mead  the  House  concurred 
with  the  action  of  the  House  of  Bishops  in  fixing  tomor- 
row  evening,  7}^  o'clock,  as  the  time  of  the  closing  ser- 
vices at  Calvary  Church,  corner  of  21st  street  and 
Fourth  Avenue. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight,  of  the  Committee  on  Canons,  to 
whom  was  referred  Message  No.  34  from  the  House  of 
Bishops,  repealing  the  proviso  in  the  last  clause  of  Canon 
10,  Clause  1,  Title  I.,  reported  a  resolution  of  non-con- 
currence; which  resolution  was  adopted. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight  reported  from  the  same  committee 
a  resolution  (adopted)  against  the  prayer  of  a  petition 
that  all  new  dioceses  should  form  their  standing  commit- 
tees of  an  equal  number  of  clergymen  and  laymen. 
He  said :  In  regard  to  this  matter  I  have  to  observe  to 
the  House,  as  they  all  very  well  know,  that  of  late  years 
there  has  been  no  deviation  whatever  from  the  ordinary 
practice  of  forming  standing  committees  in  this  way,  of 
tour  clergymen  and  four  laymen.  So  far  as  we  know 
there  are  but  three  exceptions — one  of  the  diocese  of 
Connecticut — which  has  never  had  a  layman  in  the 
standing  committee  from  the  days  of  Bishop  Seabury 
down.  Their  standing  committee  consists  of  five  clergy- 
men. The  standing  committee  of  the  diocese  of  Mary- 
land consists  of  eight  clergymen.  But  as  a  general  rule 
— I  believe  universal  of  late  years- — there  have  been 
four  clergymen  and  four  laymen.  The  committee  do 
not  think  it  expedient  to  pass  a  resolution  which  might 
seem  to  reflect  upon  those  dioceses.  There  is  no  evil 
complained  of.  The  dioceses  formed  of  late  years  all 
conform  to  what  is  now  the  general  principle.  [The 
resolution  was  adopted.] 

A  resolution  from  the  Committee  on  Canons  with  ref- 
erence to  a  certain  amendment  of  Canon  14,  Section  1, 
Title  1.,  was  adopted. 

On  motion  of  Rev.  Dr.  Howe  the  House  proceeded  to 
fill  the  vacancies  in  the  Committee  to  examine  the  proof- 
sheets  of  the  standard  Bible;  and  the  House  confirmed 
the  nomination  of  Rev.  Dr.  Hare  and  Mr.  James  Pott. 

Hon.  S.  B.  RuGGLES. — I  propose  the  following  pre- 
amble and  resolution : 

Whereas,  The  General  Convention  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  are 
fully  invested  by  its  Constitution  with  supreme  and  in- 
dependent authority  to  establish,  and  in  its  sole  discre- 
tion from  time  to  time  to  alter  or  add  to,  a  Book  of  Com- 
mon Prayer,  administration  of  the  sacraments  and  other 
rites  and  ceremonies  of  the  Church  in  the  United  States 
and  to  be  used  therein,  with  like  authority  and  direction 
to  prescribe,  add  to,  or  vaiy  any  of  the  rubrics  or  riiles 
in  respect  to  such  rites  and  ceremonies,  and  in  tlie  exer- 
cise of  such  supreme  authority  is  in  no  way  dependent 


182 


on  or  subject  to  any  action  or  decision  of  any  ecclesias- 
tical boJy  or  tribunal  in  any  foreign  country ;  therefore — 
Resolved,  That  in  view  of  such  independent  authority 
and  effectually  to  compose  any  prevailing  differences  in 
the  Church  in  the  United  States  and  secure  its  godly 
quiet,  the  House  of  Bishops  be  and  they  are  hereby  re- 
spectfully requested  to  submit  to  the  General  Convention 
at  its  next  triennial  meeting  such  form  of  rubrics  or  rules 
in  respect  to  such  rites  and  ceremonies  within  the  limits 
of  a  wise  tolerance  as  in  their  judgment  may  be  neces- 
sary for  conducting  the  worship  of  the  Church  in  a  de- 
corous and  orderly  manner,  and  in  harmony  with  the  es- 
tablished doctrines  and  highest  interests  of  the  Church. 

I  would  ask  leave  to  spend  a  few  moments  in  explaining 
this,  if  in  order. 

The  President.— That  is  ruled  out  as  a  new  matter. 
Mr.  RuGGLEs. — I  ask  to  lay  this  upon  the  table  to  be 
called  up. 

The  President. — It  can  not  be  in  order  during  this 
session. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Welsh  the  order  of  the  day  was 
taken  up. 

Rev.  Dr.  Paddock. — Do  Itinderstand  that  the  ques- 
tion of  indefinite  postponement  is  now  before  the  House  ? 
(The  President. — Yes  sir.).  I  desire  to  say  one  word 
upon  the  subject.  The  question  now  before  the  House, 
as  1  understand  it,  is  the  indefinite  postponement  not 
merely  of  the  minority  report,  but  with  that  also  the  re- 
port called  for  convenience  the  majority  report  of  the 
Committee  on  Canons.  If  I  understand  it,  it  is  proposed, 
after  sundry  memorials  have  been  referred  to  this  House, 
signed  by  most  influential  names,  after  these  memorials 
have  been  referred  to  a  committee,  and  after  that  com- 
mittee has  devoted  a  very  considerable  jjortion  of  its 
time  to  this  question,  after  a  report  has  been  presented 
by  all  that  committee  save  two  (the  committee  consisting 
of  eleven),  and  after  the  report  of  the  two  has  been 
spoken  to,  and  all  remarks  immediately  bearing  upon  the  | 
report  of  the  majority  have  been  shut  off  as  out  of  or- 
der— it  is  proposed  by  this  one  plan  to  swamp  both  re- 
ports; and  because  the  House  may  not  perchance  be 
pleased  with  the  minority  report,  to  include  in  it  the 
swamping  of  both  reports,  although  the  majority  report 
has  not  had  a  chance  to  be  discussed.  It  seems  that 
there  ought  to  be  good  reasons  given  for  such  an  e.xtra- 
ordinary  course  of  proceedings.  I  grant  at  once  that  in 
the  rambling  arguments — I  think  they  have  been  such — 
which  we  have  heard,  which  have  gone  over  the  whole 
ground,  something  has  been  said  indirectly  touching  upon 
the  majority  report.  We  have  heard  explanations  legal, 
touching  the  whole  question  of  the  English  law,  which 
is  not  once  touclied  upon  in  either  report  directly ;  we 
have  had  explanations  critical  offered,  touching  some  of 
the  most  difficult  and  contested  passages  of  Scripture,  by 
some  of  our  most  learned  laymen ;  we  have  had  argu- 
ments historical,  tracing  the  whole  question  all  the  way 
Irom  the  Book  of  Genesis  down  to  the  last  records  of 
the  diocese  of  Ohio- — every  shape  of  the  question  from 
the  ritualistic  controversy  which  prompted  the  brethren 
of  Joseph  to  strip  their  poor  brother  of  his  vestments. 


We  have  had  all  these  points  brought  up;  and  yet  the 
majority  report  has  not  been  at  all  discussed. 

What  are  we  to  gain  by  this  convenient  resolution 
which   proposes  to  sink  them  both  out   of  sight  'i     It 
may  be  said  that  there  is  no  need  of  any  report  upon  the 
subject.     That  ought  to  have  been  said  before  we  be- 
gan.    It  is  a  sad  time,  after  this  Convention  has  occu- 
pied two  weeks  in  considering  this  subject,  to  claim  we 
do  not  want  to  say  iftiything  about  it.     After  discussing 
it,  it  is  not  worthy  of  the  Convention  to   withdraw  it 
from  the  Convention,  as  if  either  it  could  not  be  touched 
upon  or  else  the  Convention  does  not  think  it  worthy 
of  any  mention,  whatsoever.     It  will  do  us  an  immense 
injury  to  come  up  and   look  this  question  fairly  in  the 
face,  and  then  shrink  from  it.     Our  ears  will   be  made 
to  tingle  for  that  this  Convention,  with  a  question  be- 
fore it  than  which  there  has  been  no  greater  in  the  last 
generation,    has   shrunk  back  from  it,  and  has   not  a 
word   to   say,  lest  it  should  produce   some   ill-feeling. 
Ought    we   to    fear   ill-feeling?     \  am  sure   that  the 
prayers  of  the  Church  have  been  answered,  and  that  the 
spirit  of  God  has  literally  rested  upon  and  in  the  hearts 
of  all  the  members  of  this  House.     I  challenge  contra- 
diction when   I  say  that  in  all  the  records  of  debate, 
there  has  not    been  the  instance  where  there  has  been 
so  wonderfully  harmonious  and  beautiful  a  spirit  prev- 
alent as  in  this  House  during  this  entire  session.     We 
have  had  answers  to  prayers,  uttered  for  the  control  of 
the  Spirit  of  God.     Every  man  has  spoken  under  the 
abiding  conviction  that  the  Spirit  of  God   was  among 
us,  and  that  we  must  be   careful  of  the  vehemence  of 
our  tongues  or  the  earnestness  of  our  hearts.     I  do  not 
believe  that  there  is  a  man  in  this  house  to-day  that  has, 
for  one  moment,  proposed  to  allow  either  the  earnest- 
ness of  his  heart,  or  the   vehemence  of  his  tongue,  to 
lead  him  into  such  earnest,  vehement,  over-excited  ex- 
pressions as  might  seem — if  I  may  venture  upon  such 
a  figure — to  deaden  the  sound  of  the  rustling  wings  of 
the  guardian  angels,  whom,  I  verily  believe,  God  has 
given  charge  concerning  us,  that  we,  as  a  council,  dash 
not  our  foot  against  any  stone.     Ought  we  not  to  con- 
sider this  question?     Will  gentlemen  say  that,  because 
no  canon  is  passed,  therefore  nothing  is  done  ?     Are  gen- 
tlemen, who  were  present  in  the  last   General  C'onven- 
tion,  to  rise  and  talk  about  the  joint  resolutions''of  this 
House  and  the  House  of  Bishops  being  mere  bruia  ful- 
mina,  that  nobody   cares  for?     Is  it  not  on  record,  on 
the  last  page  of  the  General  Convention,  that  the  sense 
of  this'House  was  expressed  by  precisely  such  a  general 
resolution,  which  conveyed  the  mind  of  the  Church  as 
distinctly  as  any  law,  touching  the  incompatibility   of 
clergymen  bearing  arms  ?     And  was  it  not  argued  that 
the  expression  of  this  House,  by  a  joint  resolution, 
would  avail  in  our  National  legislature,  to  prevent  cler- 
gymen from  being  forced  to  bear  arms  ?     Are  we  to  be 
told  that  all  that  is  said  by    joint  resolution — that  all 
the  utterances  ol'  this  House  that  are  not  put  in  the 
thunders  of  Sinai — that  are  not  commands,  with  penal- 


183 


ties  attached — are  of  no  avail,  and  nobody  will  i-ai  e  for 
them,  and  that  the  mind  of  this  House,  if  expressed  as 
the  distinct,  moderate,  charitable,  kindly,  and  yet  firm, 
utterances  of  the  House  of  Bishops  and  the  House  of 
Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  is  of  no  sort  of  use — that  it 
is  mere  empty  wind?  God  forbid  that  we  shall  ever 
see  that  day  come.  God  forbid  that  this  Convention 
shall,  by  an  indefinite  postponement  of  these  resolutions, 
both  of  which  are  worthy  of  respect,  and  with  either  of 
which  I  should  be,  reasonably  satisfied — God  forbid,  I 
say,  that  it  should  justify  these  reporters  in  sending  it 
out  to  the  land  that  nothing  that  is  said  by  the  House 
of  Bishops  and  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies 
is  worth  anything,  or  will  restrain  any  one,  unless  we 
make  it  in  the  language — "  Thou  shalt  not,"  and  affix  a 
penalty.  1  hope,  in  fairness  to  the  report  of  the  majori- 
ty, considering  the  admirable  temper  of  this  House,  in 
which  there  has  not  been  an  angry  word,  that  we  will 
be  willing  to  vote  upon  the  minority  report,  if  w'e  do  not 
like  to  vote  upon  the  majority  report. 

Kev.  Dr.  Van  Deusbn  : — I  certainly  take  great  i)leas- 
ure  in  concurring  with  the  remarks  of  the  gentleman 
from  Michigan,  [Rev.  Dr.  Paddock]  in  regard  to  the 
summary  mode  of  putting  these  reports  out  of  consider- 
ation. It  seems  to  me  not  respectful  to  either  the  ma- 
jority or  the  minority.  If  neither  of  those  reports  can 
command  the  support  of  this  House,  there  certainly 
should  be  found  something  as  a  substitute.  It  is  evi- 
dent, there  is  a  great  diversity  of  views  on  this  subject. 
There  is  a  difficulty  in  the  minds  of  many  men  in  this 
Convention  in  voting  for  either  of  the  reports,  though 
we  may  concur  in  the  general  principle  of  those  reports. 
1  do  not  think  there  is  a  great  diversity,  but  there  are 
some  insuperable  objections  to  both.  It  seems  we  may 
find  some  guidance  for  our  action  in  the  former  history 
ot  this  House.  We  have  been  told  that  this  is  not  a 
question  merely  of  rites  and  ceremonies,  but  one  of 
doctrine.  VVe  have  also  been  told  that  there  are  only 
three  churches  with  the  "  advanced  rituals  ;"  and  it  is 
not  for  me  to  deny  the  statement.  I  am  willing  to  go 
further,  and  acknowledge  that  there  is  not  involved  in 
these  rites  and  ceremonies  a  denial  of  the  fundamental 
doctrines  of  the  Church,  or  an  assertion  of  that  which 
is  questionable.  Is  this  the  first  time  that  the  Church's 
doctrine  has  been  denied  ?  Is  it  the  first  time  that  this 
Church  has  been  convulsed,  from  one  end  to  the  other, 
with  questions  of  faith  ?  I  think  not.  I  think  I  can 
call  the  attention  of  this  House,  especially  the  older 
members  of  this  llou.se,  to  such  a  case^to  the  discus- 
sion, in  the  Convention  of  1844,  upon  the  subject  of  the 
Oxford  Tracts.  I  believe  it  certainly  did  convulse  the 
Church  at  the  time ;  that  the  church  was  all  aflame 
with  excitement,  from  one  end  to  the  other.  It  was  an 
excitement  that  had  been  produced  by  the  distribution 
of  these  tracts  throughout  the  American  Church,  dur- 
ing a  period  of  some  ten  or  twelve  years;  and  it  culmi- 
nated in  the  action  of  that  Convention.  The  subject 
was  brought  forward,  and  referred  to  a  committee  ;  that 


committee  made  a  report;  the  report  was  discussed, 
with  the  several  amendments  presented,  for  six  succes- 
sive days.  No  one  who  was  a  member  of  that  Conven- 
tion can  but  remember  the  intense  excitement. 

I  well  remember,  too,  when  the  present  diocesan  of 
Maryland  was  elected  to  that  diocese  as  its  Bishop,  that 
a  member  of  the  Convention  rose  in  his  place  and  pro- 
tested against  that  election,  and  pictured  the  very 
alarming  consequences  that  would  result  from  his  elec- 
tion. What  was  the  actual  action  of  the  House  in  re- 
gard to  that  important  matter — a  matter  involving,  as  I 
humbly  believed,  consequences,  if  truthfully  stated  at 
the  time,  far  more  threatening  than  all  that  has  been 
threatened  by  all  the  advanced  ritualism  in  this  coun- 
try or  in  England  ?  It  seems  that  action  was  almost 
unanimous,  and  I  humbly  present  that  action  to  the 
consideration  of  the  House,  in  determining  our  action 
upon  this  subject.  It  seems  that  action  was  almost 
unanimous.  What  was  it?  It  was  in  the  form  of 
these  two  resolution.s,  based  upon  two  principles:  one, 
that  the  Church  has  already  asserted  sufficient  stand- 
ards for-  her  doctrine ;  the  other,  that  this  House  has 
no  privilege  of  trying  her  clergy,  whatever  may  be  their 
offences— that  they  are  not  amenable  to  its  jurisdiction 
— that  it  is  not  competent  for  this  House  to  take  into 
consideration  the  doctrines  of  any  one  of  her  priests. 
My  own  personal  feeling  in  regard  to  this  matter  is 
simply  this:  I  do  feel  embarrassed  in  regard  to  these 
two  reports.  I  am  not  willing,  by  my  vote,  to  be 
placed  witli  that  class  of  clergymen  who  are,  on  this 
floor,  the  advocates  of  an  advanced  ritualism;  nor  with 
that  class  of  clergymen  who  are  dispased  to  prescribe 
one  fixed  standard  of  uniformity  in  all  cases  and  undei" 
all  circumstances.  I  prefer,  as  remarked  by  the  learned 
Deputy  from  Illinois,  to  leave  this  question  where  it  is 
left  by  the  Chiu-ch,  and  where,  in  one  of  the  resolutions 
of  the  majority  of  the  committee,  it  is  left. 

I  say  the  whole  question  is  involved  in  insuperable 
difficulties.  It  seems  to  me  that  these  resolutions, 
passed  in  1844,  will  express  the  feelings  of  the  majority 
of  this  House.  Though  not  now  in  order,  I  shall  avail 
myself  of  the  first  opportunity  of  presenting  them  as  a 
substitute  for  the  matter  before  the  House. 

Resolved,  That  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Depu? 
ties  consider  the  Liturgy,  Offices,  and  Articles  of  the 
Church  sufficient  exponents  of  her  sense  of  the  essen- 
tial doctrines  of  Holy  Scripture ;  and  that  the  Canons 
of  the  Cliuich  afford  ample  means  of  discipline  and  cor- 
rection for  all  who  depart  from  her  Standards. 

Resolved,  further,  that  the  General  Convention  is  not 
a  suitable  tribunal  for  the  trial  and  censure  of,  and  that 
the  Church  is  not  responsible  lor,  the  errors  of  individ- 
uals, whether  they  are  members  of  this  Churcli  or  other- 
wise. 

Messages  No.  54  to  63,  were  here  received  from  the 
House  of  Bishops. 

Rev.  Dr.  Lau\oh: — I   entirely   concur  with  the   re 
marks  of  the  Clerical  deputy  from  INlichigan,  who  stated 
that  this  was  by  far  the  most  important  subject  that  had 


184 


been  broucht  before  this  Crmvention.  I  feel,  sir,  that 
we  might  rather  have  omitted  all  the  other  subjects 
which  have  come  before  us,  than  (o  go  home  and  omit 
specific  and  definite  action  of  this  Church  upon  this 
subject.  On  all  the  subjects  upon  which  we  have  legis- 
lated there  has  been  no  particular  interest  felt ;  but  upon 
this  subject  there  has  been  a  deep  interest  throughout 
the  length  and  breadth  of  this  Church,  and  throughout 
the  Christian  world ;  and  that  interest  has  excited  the 
attention  of  all  our  Church,  and  of  all  Christian  bodies 
out  of  our  Church  to  be  centred  upon  this  General 
Convention  as  a  body  that  will  take  hold  and  deal  with 
a  subject  which  is  producing  great  evil,  and  which  is 
injuring  us  as  a  Church,  and  impeding  and  hindering 
her  growth.  Now  we  cannot  dodge  this  great  question. 
We  ought  not  to  say  virtually,  "  we  are  afraid  to  meet 
it  openly  and  squarely,"  or  to  use  a  common  expression, 
to  take  the  bull  by  the  horns.  We  ought  not  to  say  it 
is  a  question  of  so  much  delicacy  that  we  must  touch  it 
very  lightly,  or  so  lightly  that  when  our  action  comes  to 
be  looked  at,  it  will  be  said  it  is  not  one  thing  nor  the 
other — ritualism  is  not  condemmed ;  this  evil  is  not  put 
away  ;  it  is  not  even  censured  ;  it  is  left  to  stand  just  as 
it  was  before  this  Convention  came  together.  There 
has  been  an  attempt  upon  the  part  of  some  to  regard 
this  as  a  small  matter;  that  there  are  but  three  churches 
where  there  is  anything  like  advanced  ritualism.  That 
is  enough  to  destroy  the  peace  of  the  Church.  The 
number,  though  small,  is  sufficient  to  engage  the  atten- 
tion of  this  House.  Suppose  the  papers  had  announced 
that  there  were  three  cases  of  Asiatic  Cholera,  in  New 
York,  Baltimore,  Philadelphia,  the  community  would 
be  all  aghast.  We  are  in  danger  of  being  invaded  by 
this  pestilence  that  walketh  in  darkness.  All  the  Sani- 
tary Committees  in  those  cities  would  have  got  together, 
and  said  here  is  danger.  Others  would  have  said  those 
are  only  individual  cases.  Ah  !  but  every  individual 
brings  other  cases ;  it  is  the  nature  of  the  disease  to  be- 
gin with  individuals  and  to  spread  through  the  connuu- 
nity.  Now  then,  this  subject  has  been  of  such  import- 
ance as  in  the  Old  Country  to  call  for  a  Royal  Commit- 
tee, who  have  sat  on  it  and  adjudicated  questions  arising 
under  it.  The  example  of  the  Church  of  England  is 
before  us.  As  there  was  an  inability  between  the  Bish- 
ops and  Convocations  and  others  to  deal  with  it,  she 
has  appointed  a  royal  commission  to  deal  with  it.  We 
have  the  power  in  ourselves.  If  this  question  is  of  such 
importance  that  it  has  called  ibr  a  royal  commission  ; 
if  in  this  country  twenty-eight  bishops  have  come  for- 
ward and,  under  their  solemn  seals  and  names,  have 
warned  the  community  against  this  dangerous  tendency ; 
if  clergymen  in  their  pulpits  have  had  to  denounce  it ; 
if  laymen  in  various  parts  of  the  country  have  Lad  to 
deplore  it ;  and  if  the  press  in  its  loud  and  far-reaching 
voice  has  spread  this  all  over  the  land, — can  we  say  it 
is  a  matter  of  small  moment,  and  that  it  is  worthy  of 
the  dignicy  ot  such  a  body  either  to  shirk  it  or  pass  it  by 


lightly,  and  not  satisfy  the  expectations  of  the  Church 
by  meeting  it  boldly,  either  endorsing  it  or  deprecating 
it  ?  Can  it  be  possible  that  this  great  atmosphere  can 
be  filled  with  so  much  smoke,  and  no  fire  anywhere  ? 
Here  are  petitions  which  have  come  before  this  Conven- 
tion, and  this  Church  has  acted  upon  them  in  committee, 
and  we  have  two  reports.  The  majority  report  is,  for 
the  present,  laid  aside,  to  consider  the  minority  report 
as  a  substitute.  When  I  come  to  look  candidly  and  dis- 
passionately at  these  two  reports,  it  appears  to  me  that 
the  majority  report  is  an  attempt  to  get  rid  of  the  subject ; 
it  does  not  meet  this  great  question  fairly  and  fully. 
When  I  come  to  consider  the  minority  report,  I  find 
there  is  a  resolution  specifying  the  evil,  and  meeting  it 
fairly  and  squarely,  and  I  am  decidedly  in  favor  of  this 
substitute,  for  the  reason  that  it  meets  this  great  ques- 
tion fully  and  finrly,  looks  it  in  the  face,  and  declares' 
what  it  is,  and  what  is  the  duty  of  the  Church  in  regard 
to  it,  now  the  difficultv  has  arisen  ;  but  it  is  said  this  thing 
is  local,  confined  to  this  city.  Why  has  it  not  been  re- 
moved ?  The  question  has  been  left  with  the  bishop  ; 
he  has  refused  to  interfere ;  he  has  gone  and  identified 
himself  with  it,  thus  giving  it  all  the  countenance  of  his 
official  .^auction.  If  the  bishop  of  the  diocese  will  not 
interfere,  is  there  any  power  to  deal  with  it  ?  The 
Church  looks  to  the  General  Convention  as  e.xpressing 
the  voice  of  the  whole  Church,  and  it  looks  to  us  to  say 
something  definite,  to  blow  a  trumpet  which  shall  not 
give  an  uncertain  sound.  I  will  suppose  that  there  was 
a  Presbyterian  Convention  in  this  city  that  should  alter 
its  ritual — its  mode  of  conducting  divine  worship;  and 
it  should  appear  that  in  some  congregation,  in  the  Com- 
munion the  communicants  kneel  in  the  chancel  instead 
of  sitting  in  their  seats,  as  is  now  the  practice,  and  the  rec- 
tor should  say,  "Don't  receive  the  holy  communion  with 
the  ungloved  hand",  the  Presbyterians  would  say,  and 
we  should  say,  that  congregation  will  soon  be  among 
us.  [Laughter.]  Suppose  on  the  other  hand,  there 
was  a  Romish  Church  in  this  city,  and  the  priest  of  that 
church,  instead  of  saying  mass  as  usual,  should  not  make 
his  genuflections  before  the  altar.     [Time's  up.]      I  was 

only  going  to  sa}' .     [Laughter.] 

Hon.  S.  B.  RuGGLES: — I  am  opposed  to  the  indefi- 
nite postponement  of  this  question.  I  hope  that  the 
discussion  may  continue  in  order  that  the  question  may 
be  definitely  disposed  of,  especially  in  view  of  the  char- 
acter of  the  questions  now  pending.  I  shall  address  ni}'- 
self  directly  to  the  fourth  resolution  which  /esolves  (1) 
that  "the  burning  of  lights  in  the  order  for  the  Holy 
Communion,  (2)  the  burning  of  incense,  (3)  reverences 
to  the  holy  table,  or  (4)  the  elements  thereon,  (5)  the 
elevation  of  the  elements,  and  (6)  the  elevation  of  the 
Eucharist,  are  innovations,"  &c.  I  am  opposed  to  the 
indefinite  postponement  of  the  question,  because  we 
should  look  at  them  and  see  what  is  the  proper  disposi- 
tion to  make  of  them.  They  all  involve  the  question  of 
degree  of  reverence  due  to  the  Holy  Eucharist.     I  main- 


185 


tain  that  that  whole  question  in  all  its  aspects  is  only  a 
question  of  degree — a  threefold  degree  :  positive,  com 
parative,  superlative.  The  positive  degree  is  to  trea 
the  eueharist  as  a  mere  memorial,  in  which  there  is  no 
mystery  whatever ;  that  every  one  can  understand  it. 
The  second,  or  comparative,  degree,  is  to  treat  it  as 
having  the  spiritu.al  presence.  The  third,  or  superlative, 
degree,  is  to  treat  it  as  the  real  presence.  The  first  is 
intelligible.  The  second  and  third  are  far  beyond  poor 
human  reason  ;  we  can  not  solve  it;  it  is  beyond  our 
reason  to  solve  it.  Why  was  the  third  question  ever 
made  so  important  in  Ecclesiastical  history  ?  It  was 
thus  maintained  to  establish  the  supreme  authorit}'  of 
the  Pope  of  Rome — as  a  touchstone  by  which  to  drive 
his  authoritj',  that  those  who  disputed  that  dogma  should 
be  carried  to  the  stake.  It  has  therefore  received  a  de- 
gree of  importance  rather  beyond  its  real  merits,  how- 
ever Treat  they  are. 

If  we  are  to  look  abroad  for  authority  in  deciding  this 
matter,  which  I  hope  we  shall  not,  there  is  a  recent  de- 
cision by  one  of  the  highest  ecclesiastical  tribunals  tha? 
the  burning  of  lights  is  not  an  innovation,  but  the  burn- 
ing of  incense  is.  It  is  now  under  appeal  to  go  to  cer- 
tain gentlemen  appointed  by  the  Crown  of  England. 
We  can  decide  the  question  without  the  aid  of  any 
Prime-Minister.  I  had  the  honor  yesterday  of  being 
allowed  the  floor  for  three  or  four  minutes,  in  which  I 
endeavored  to  maintain  the  integrity  of  the  Cliurch  by 
a  consideration  of  its  structure ;  now  I  hope  by  an  ap- 
peal to  its  common  sense.  You  may  take  a  vote  upon 
this  question  and  have  so  many  aj'es  and  noes,  but  the 
thing  is  not  settled ;  on  the  contrary  taking  the  ayes 
and  noes  makes  a  breach  at  once,  through  which  schism 
may  come.  If  schism  ever  comes  it  will  be  upon  a  ques- 
tion of  ayes  and  noes  on  such  a  question  as  this.  There- 
fore, I  hope  there  will  be  no  motion  made  to  lay  this  on 
the  table.  I  hope  it  will  be  fully  discussed.  1  do  not 
like  that  guillotine  process  of  cutting  off  the  heads  of  un- 
important questions.  I  do  not  like  to  see  the  execution- 
er ready  to  drop  his  axe  upon  my  propositions.  If  this 
question  can  not  be  settled  in  any  other  way,  it  should 
be  sent  to  our  Right  Reverend  Fathers  in  God,  the 
House  of  Bishops ;  and  there  it  may  be  settled  ;  for  they 
may  sit  with  closed  doors,  taking  time ;  and  they  may 
agree  upon  a  certain  set  of  rubrics  upon  which  we  may 
all  unite,  and  thus  unite  all  parties  in  this  Church. 

Mr.  G.  C.  Shattuck  : — If  the  cholera  were  to  appear 
here,  I  do  not  see  but  we  have  doctors  enough  to  deal 
with  it,  and  we  don't  need  any  more  laws  upon  the  sub- 
ject. In  regard  to  this  subject,  I  do  not  see  the  neces- 
sity of  any  more  provisions  or  any  more  laws,  or  why  we 
should  be  in  any  wise  frightened.  I  come  from  Massa- 
chusetts, and  I  represent  the  Puritan  elements.  My  ances- 
tors two  hundred  years  ago  were  very  much  disturbed  by 
ritualism,  and  they  went  out  of  the  Church.  The  Pu- 
ritans did  not  build  churches ;  they  built  meeting-houses  ; 
they  had  no  "  three  deckers ;"  but  they  had  a  small  com- 
24 


munion  table  and  a  large  pulpit  over  that ;  and  their  build 
mgs  were  mtended  for  the  State  as  well  as  the  Church. 
They  met  in  them  on  Sundays   for  worship  ;  and  they 
met  on  Monday  or  Tuesday  for  the  discussion  of  various 
political  subjects.     The  moderator  used  to  sit  in  what 
we  consider  as  the  chancel,   and   at   the  Lord's   table, 
which  was  a  table — and  more,  he  used  to  take  his  jack- 
knife  (as  he  could  not  write),  and   score  on    the  table 
the  state  of  the   votes.     [Laughter].     There  was  a  sort 
of  symbolism.     I  am  satisfied  that   he   believed  in  the 
doctrine  of  the   real  presence.     They  believed  in  the 
administration  of  the   Holy  Sacrament,  and  that  there 
was  a  supernatural  presence  of  their  Redeemer.     They 
broke  up  the  fonts  because   they   believed  there  was  a 
superstition  connected  with  them;  but  they  believed  in 
the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration,  which   so  many 
members  of  this    Church  seem  so   much   frightened  at. 
I  am  satisfied  that  they  believed  in  this  doctrine,  but  they 
had  no  font.     About  twenty  years  ago,  in   my  remem- 
brance, the  clergyman  of  a  certain  Church   pubhshed  a 
tract,  containing  a  sermon    agamst   the  observance  of 
Christmas  and  against  decorating  churches.     That   ser- 
mon was  considered  so  important   that  it  was  placed  on 
the  reading  desk   of  all  the    Episcopal  churches  in  that 
city.     I  think  it  had  some  eifect,  because  1  must  say  that 
our  churches  are  not  exactly  what   I   wish.     But  this 
very  church  [that   protested  against   the  decoration  of 
churches]  has  just  erected  a  building  for  three  hundred 
thousand  dollars  which  is   altogether  superior  to  any  of 
the  churches  in  this  city,  except  it  be  Trinity  Church  ; 
and  it  is  filled  with  symbols,  and  has  all  the  colors  of  the 
rainbow.     It  has  a  cross  on  the  top  ten  feet  higher  than 
Bunker   Hill    Monument.        [Laughter].      The   First 
Church   in  Boston  has  also  built  a  church   in    which 
there   is  actually  a  cloister  with  stained  windows.  Here 
are    the  two  branches   of  the    Congregational  Church 
alongside,  which  are  competing,  as  it  were,  with   each 
other — beautiful  churches  full  of  symbolism,  with  every 
decoration  that  they  can  possibly  command.    The  Inde- 
pendents established  the  First    Church,  and   we  estab- 
lished the   Second.     The   First    Church   that  is  build- 
ing this  handsome    building   is  going   to   introduce   a 
Liturgy.      I  observe   what  is  going  on   with  regard  to 
both  sides.     I  am  not   for  putting  any  restrictions  upon 
one  party  or  the  other.     It  used  to  be   an  objection  to 
the  Episcopal  Church  that  it  was  a  cold,  dead  Church  ; 
that  they   were  formalists.      I  rejoice   that  there  are 
signs  of  life  and  activity  in  the  Church.     I  have  not  the 
least  fears  for  the  safety  of  the  Church. 

Rev.  Mr.  Gadsden  : — I  have  always  been  accustomed 
to  see  the  rites  of  the  Church  performed  with  a  surplice. 
i  remember  when  a  boy  in  being  particularly  interest- 
ed in  one  of  those  beautiful  hymns  of  lleber  in  which 
he  describes  the  three  churches  alluded  to  to-day. 
While  he  speaks  of  one  as  having  laid  aside  her  attire, 
he  commends  the  matron-like  Church  of  England,  hav- 
ing attired  herself  to  impress  all  hearts  with  the  service 


186- 


have  been  accustomed.  I  have  been  astonished  to  see 
how  far  every  thing  around  us  here  has  removed  from 
what  I  have  been  accustomed  to.  I  have  never  before  be- 
held until  we  came  into  this  church,  the  candlesticks 
and  the  cross  on  the  altar.  These  novelties  may  be  in- 
troduced if  they  are  wise  ;  if  they  tend  to  the  advance- 
ment of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  enlargement  of 
His  kingdom,  let  them  come  in.  If  there  is  anything  in 
the  past  which  is  valuable,  which  will  vitalize  this 
Church,  and  save  the  souls  of  men,  let  it  be  used  ;  but 
let  us  examine  it  carefully.  Will  any  man  say  these  are 
not  innovations  ?  They  may  be  the  revival  of  old  cus- 
toms ;  but  undoubtedly  there  are  those  which  are  new. 
The  question  is,  Is  this  Church  prepared  to  go  forward 
in  these  innovations  1  That  question  ought  to  be  settled  ; 
and  it  is  for  that  reason  I  am  opposed  to  the  motion  to  in- 
definitely postpone  these  resolutions.  Let  us  meet  the  mat- 
ter now,  boldly,  and  decidedly, — not  in  any  spirit  of  strife 
and  contention,  but  as  brethren  whose  hearts  are  beat- 
ing together  in  love  to  God  and  for  the  advancement  of 
His  cause.  Let  us  gravely,  seriously  decide  what  is  re- 
ally and  truly  best  for  the  interest  of  this  Church  of 
Jesus  Christ  and  the  spread  of  His  Gospel  through  all 
this  land.  Let  us  not  say,  "There  is  no  danger.' 
There  is  no  part  of  this  city  in  which  I  have  been,  and 
there  is  no  part  of  this  country,  in  which  I  have  not 
heard  this  question  of  ritualism  brought  up.  All  we  are 
called  upon  to  decide  is  whether  as  a  matter  of  principle 
this  Church  is  prepared  to  innovate.  This  is  a  question 
of  great  and  vital  moment.  If  I  am  permitted  to  allude  to 
myself,  I  must  confess  here  that,  for  the  first  time  in  my 
life,  on  a  recent  occasion,  I  was  compelled  to  leave  the 
Church,  in  which  I  had  been  educated  and  brought  up, 
because  I  could  not  receive  the  sacrament  in  the  new 
forms  with  which  it  was  administered.  I  went  into 
what  I  supposed  to  be  a  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  and 
I  saw  the  very  same  ceremonial  that  I  have  witnessed  in 
foreign  lands  in  the  Church  of  Rome.  I  saw  the  sac 
rament  in  which  our  blessed  Lord  and  Saviour  is  sit 
before  us,  and  by  which  those  who  truly  and  faithfully 
receive  it,  really,though  spiritually,  receive  Him  into  their 
hearts — I  saw  it  made  publicly  the  subject  of  adoration 
and  worship  ;  and  I  saw  connected  therewith  such  per- 
formances as  are  not  at  all  laid  down  in  our  rubric,  nor 
at  all  connected  with  our  worship.  I  ask  if  that  is  not 
a  question  we  should  meet  V  if  that  is  right  ?  if  that  is 
the  way  in  which  we  desire  to  advance  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  this  land  ?  Then  come  up  boldly 
to  this  issue.  Or  let  it  be  known  that  we  consider  the 
Keformation  a  failure,  and  that  we  mean  to  consider 
our  Church  in  accordance  with  what  it  was  before  the 
martyrs  laid  down  their  lives  at  the  slake  !  If  we  prefer 
what  is  called  the  dignified  matronlike  character  of  our 
Churchof  England  service  let  us  say  so.  I  utter  my 
own  deep  and  solemn  feelings  in  this  matter.  God  for- 
bid 1  should  say  a  word  upon  this  floor  that  would  lead; 


to  any  unkind  feeling.  If  I  am  wrong,  may  my  breth- 
ren pardon  me.  I  here  speak  that  which  I  believe  to 
be  closely  connected  with  the  vital  interests  of  the  Gos- 
pel of  Jesus  Christ  as  sustained  by  the  Church  to  which 
my  heart  clings  with  all  the  earnest  affection  of  a  child 
who  is  nurtured  and  brought  up  in  the  midst  of  her 
holy  and  heavenly  influences.  I  hope  this  question  will 
not  be  put  from  us  without  our  meeting  it  bravely.  I 
therefore  must  vote  against  this  proposition  [to  indefi- 
nitely postpone]  and  sustain  the  minority  report  on  this 
subject. 

Mr.  Welsh,  of  Pennsylvania : — I  agree  with  the  last 
speaker  that  this  is  a  subject  of  vital  moment.  I  do  re- 
gret as  a  member  of  this  House,  that  when  the  Com- 
mittee on  Canons  could  not  agree  upon  a  law,  they  had 
not  simply  said  so  ;  for  we  are  lawmakers.  Their  in- 
terpretation of  law  or  usage  is  proper,  but  I  do  think  we 
are  introducing  into  this  House  a  dangerous  precedent. 
I  am  quite  in  favor  of  every  word  by  both  committees, 
and  I  am  ready  to  vote  for  them.  I  should  be  glad  to  see 
the  report  of  the  minority  passed  with  the  exception  o' 
one  or  two  words.  But  I  doubt  the  agreement  of  the 
House  upon  the  subject.  The  fear  I  have  is  that  we 
will  talk  it  up  until  we  really  fear  that  if  we  do  not  do 
something,  the  Church  will  be  injured.  I  believe  all  we 
need  is  to  cultivate  our  spiritual  life  a  little  more  and 
these  things  will  not  trouble  us.  I  believe,  and  I  be- 
lieve it  after  earnest  prayer,  that  we  are  on  the  eve  of  a 
reformation  far  more  important  than  any  wrought  on  the 
continent  or  in  England.  That  was  a  doctrinal  reform- 
ation. But  I  see  indications  of  a  practical  reformation 
so  that  we  shall  not  leave  the  work  of  the  Church  to  the 
minister  alone.  I  have  heard  no  trouble  touching  this 
thing  in  the  parishes  with  which  I  have  been  connected 
— not  one  word.  I  have  heard  the  question  raised  once 
or  twice.  What  was  the  result  ?  They  went  to  their 
minister  or  Bible  class  at  church,  and  they  became  far 
more  adherents  to  the  Church  than  ever  before.  With 
the  various  persons  who  are  at  work  in  the  Christian 
Church  1  have  heard  no  trouble  in  any  instance.  What 
ought  to  fill  us  with  more  horror  is  the  allowing  of  an 
auctioneer  to  come  into  the  House  of  God  and  sell  the 
pews  from  year  to  year.  Since  I  came  to  this  Convention 
a  clergyman  who  chanced  to  be  an  eloquent  man  of  God 
told  me  that  he  had  written  Ichabod  upon  his  church, 
because  when  the  auctioneer  came.  Shoddy  came  in  and 
outbid  his  earnest  worshippers,  and  twenty  or  thirty 
families  were  turned  out  of  the  church  by  the  public 
sale  of  the  pews.  I  do  feel  that  all  these  troubles  about 
ritual  great  as  they  may  be,  are  nothing  compared  with 
this  thing  of  shutting  out  from  the  House  of  God  the 
great  working  class.  I  would  not  care  if  an  earthquake 
would  crumble  down  every  church  that  is  but  a  private 
chapel,  where  the  pews  are  sold  or  rented  to  those  who 
can  afford  to  pay  high  prices.  God  by  His  spirit,  in 
answer  to  prayer,  is  moving  upon  us,  and  I  sympathize 
with   clergymen,  exposed  to  this  trial.     I  am  perfectly 


187 


willing  to  vote  for  every  word  but  two  or  three  in  these 
reports,  because  they  have  been  introduced.  If  they 
had  not  been  introduced  I  should  have  no  fear  of  touch- 
ing these  things,  because  I  see  that  where  people  are  at 
work,  where  they  are  doing  Christ's  work,  I  hear  no 
complaints. 

Rev.  Wm.  Newton  : — I  heartily  thank  God  for  many 
utterances  we  have  heard  in  this  debate,  in  reference 
to  the  last  gentleman  on  the  floor,  the  weight  of  his  ar- 
gument appeared  to  be  this,  that  there  are  other  evils 
in  the  Church  than  those  before  you.  I  fail  to  see  the 
point  or  the  force  of  the  argument.  We  are  called  up- 
on by  every  feeling  of  loyalty  to  the  Church  we  love — 
this  glorious  protestant  Church  whose  history  has  been 
traced  in  the  blood  of  a  noble  army  of  martyrs — to 
stand  up  to-day  and  plead  for  the  truth  as  we  have  re- 
ceived it  at  their  hands.  It  seems  to  me  that  there  was 
more  in  the  "cholera"  argument  than  the  gentleman 
from  Massachusetts  intended.  If  be  could  shut  out  the 
cholera  from  the  land  I  would  say  God  speed  ;  but  I 
have  read  the  history  of  the  past  not  aright,  if  with  all 
the  power  of  art  they  have  been  able  to  do  this.  If  you 
present  to  me  these  six  instances  that  are  enumerated 
in  the  fourth  resolution  as  acts  by  themselves — the 
erection  of  candlesticks,  of  crosses,  the  burning  of  in- 
cense, the  genuflection,  and  those  other  evils  that  are 
complained  of— if  you  present  them  simply  as  isolated 
acts,  I  submit  there  is  no  gentleman  on  this  floor  that  is 
afraid  of  them.  It  is  not  of  them  we  stand  in  fear  ;  it 
is  the  doctrines  which  they  symbolize ;  it  is  because 
they  are  silent  teachers,  but  most  eftectual  teachers  of 
what  we  believe  to  be  error  that  we  desire  to  lift 
up  our  voice  against  them.  And  it  seems  to  me 
a  striking  testimony  of  the  presence  of  the  Spirit  of  God 
in  producing  peace  in  the  minds  of  this  Convention  that 
we  have  been  sitting  the  last  three  weeks  with  these  si- 
lent teachers  staring  us  in  the  face.  We  heard  from 
several  gentlemen  yesterday,  pleas  for  toleration.  I  most 
heartily  concur  in  that  desire,  but  is  it  to  be  toleration 
entirely  upon  one  side  ?  It  is  to  be  toleration 
entirely  in  one  direction,  and  stringent  regulations  in 
the  other.  We  have  been  sitting  here  for  the  last  three 
weeks,  and  we  have  had  presented  memorials  courteous 
in  spirit,  heavenly  in  tone,  moderate  in  request,  bear- 
ing the  signatures  of  brethren  known  and  honored 
throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  our  Church — 
whose  natnes  are  household  words.  They  have  come 
asking  for  bread  and  you  have  given  a  stone.  You  are 
relaxing  upon  one  line  and  strengthening  all  the  bands 
on  the  other.  I  have  no  apprehension  of  error  if  truth 
can  be  unfettered  to  meet  it.  I  believe  Thomas  Jeffer- 
son never  spoke  a  truer  word  :  "Error  is  never  to  be 
feared  when  truth  is  left  free  to  combat  it."  So  let  there 
be  this  toleration,  but  give  us  on  the  other  hand  the 
liberty  to  protest  against  this  error,  and  stand  up  for 
the  simple  truth.  Let  me  recur  to  a  pleasing  remem- 
brance here.    We  glory — if  it  is  not  too  late  in  the  day — 


we  glory  in  our  name  of  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 
We  make  it  our  boast  that  we  stand  in  the  line  of  the 
noble  martyrs,  upon  the  platform  which  they  erected, 
where  they  stood,  and  from  which  they  went  down  to 
death.  Let  us  unitedly  stand  together,  bearing  with 
each  other,  believing  that  each  according  to  his  light, 
according  to  the  light  which  he  has  m  his  mind,  sub- 
mitting only  to  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit  and  the  truth 
of  God,  is  moved  and  impelled  by  a  desire  to  promul- 
gate that  truth.  Let  us  stand  here  according  to  each 
other  the  fullest  toleration.  But  for  one  I  must  protest 
against  this  toleration  which  is  strictness  on  one  side 
and  liberty  on  the  other. 

Rev.  Mr.  Wyatt: — An  objection  to  the  motion  of 
indefinite  postponement  is  that  it  could  not  be  passed 
by  anything  like  a  unanimous  vote  in  this  body.  Mr. 
President,  outside  of  these  walls  there  is  a  multitude  of 
unbelievers,  scofl'ers,  and  enemies  watching  to  see  this 
holy  ship  which  bears  us,  driven  by  the  current  and  the 
wind  to  its  ruin.  Tliis  Convention  has  it  in  Us  power  to 
give  to  all  such  minds, — I  will  not  say  a  stunning  but — 
a  wholesome  disappointment.  There  are  other  devout 
people  on  their  knees,  day  and  night,  praying  that,  in 
this  peril  as  in  others,  the  good  pilot  may  awake  to  de- 
liver us,  to  calm  all  the  threatening  elements  ;  and  to 
them  this  Convention  has  it  in  its  power  to  givea  glorious 
jubilee,  and  that  by  passing  upon  this  vexed  question 
a  decision  not  reached  by  a  majority  report,  but  unani- 
mously and  heartily.  It  is  on  all  hands  represented 
that  this  measure  can  be  effected.  And  the  confidence 
is  based  not  on  the  merit  of  any  man's  resolution,  but 
more  on  the  good  sense  anil  the  good  feeling  which  evi- 
dently pervades  this  whole  body,  and  most  of  all,  Mr. 
President,  upon  the  inspiring  trust  that  we  shall  have 
upon  our  actijn  the  grace  and  the  blessing  of  Him  who 
has  promised  to  be  with  us  to  the  end  of  the  world,  and 
who,  we  may  humbly  believe,  is  truly  present  in  power 
and  love  here,  and  now.  Why  should  not  this  Convention 
improve  such  an  opportunitj^,  if  it  be  possible,  by  sur- 
rendering not  our  belief,  not  our  consciences,  not  the 
intelligent  judgment  that  may  be  based  upon  them^ 
these  no  man  can  with  honor  to  himself  submit,  were 
it  even  to  the  primate  of  the  whole  world.  But,  sir,  our 
wills  are  another  thing.  These  we  may  submit,  and  in 
so  doing  do  honor  to  our  manhood.  Therefore,  1  say  1 
will,  when  in  order,  in  behalf  of  many  members  of  this 
House  who  have  represented  that  such  a  measure  will 
bring  us  to  unanimity,  ofl'er  as  a  suljstitute  for  the  res- 
olutions now  before  u.s,  the  following  : 

Resolved,  the  House  of  Bishops  concurring.  That  all 
questions  which  may  be  raised  upon  the  rubrics  and  di- 
rections contained  in  the  Prayer  Book  or  upon  the  Or- 
der or  Vestments  to  be  used  in  the  public  celebration  of 
Divine  worship  and  ministration  of  religious  ollices, 
shall  be  considered  settled  for  practice  by  llie  instruc- 
tion of  the  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  in  which  the  minister 
olliciates,  if  the  Bishop  shall  choose  to  give  such  instruc- 
tion to  the  minister  iu  writing. 


188 


Ami  I  really  hope  and  pray,  Mr.  President,  it  may 
meet  the  approval  of  every  member  of  this  House,  both 
clerical  and  lay. 

Message  No.  54  was  here  received  from  the  House  of 
Bishops,  with  nominations  of  members  of  the  Board  of 
Missions.  On  motion  the  House  concurred  in  the  nom- 
inations. 

Rev.  Mr.  Perkins:— It  is  with  great  diffidence  that 
I  arise  to  say  one  word  upon  the  important  question 
that  is  before  us ;  and  I  assure  you  that  nothing  but  my 
sense  of  the  great  importance  of  the  question  would  in- 
duce me  to  rise  to  say  one  word.  But  I  am  perfectly 
satisfied  that  since  my  connection  with  this  Church 
which  has  now  existed  for  many  years,  no  question  of 
greater  importance  to  its  most  vital  interest  has  ever 
been  introduced  into  its  council.  I  may  almost  say  that 
that  is  the  universal  conviction  of  this  Church.  We 
have  only  to  remember  that  no  question  has  occupied 
the  same  space  in  the  papers  of  this  Church  for  years 
past,  none  has  been  so  generally  the  topic  of  conversa- 
tion, none  has  so  agitated  the  minds  of  the  members  of 
this  Convention ;  and  even  when  our  House  of  Bishops 
met  for  another  purpose  than  legislation — now  twelve 
months  since — so  important  did  they  consider  it  to  the 
interests  of  this  Church,  that  they  saw  fit  to  put  forth  a 
solemn  declaration  with  special  reference  to  it ;  and 
nothing  prevented  their  uttering  an  authoritative  voice 
except  tliat  they  were  not  then  sitting  as  a  co-ordinate 
branch  of  this  Convention  of  the  Church ;  and  so  soon 
as  the  subject  was  introduced  here  there  were  solemn 
faces  all  over  this  body.  Every  one  evidently  felt  that 
this  was  the  question  involving  the  most  important  in- 
terest of  this  Church — in  which  our  deepest  interests 
were  involved  and  to  which  we  should  give  the  most 
serious  consideration.  And  it  has  surprised  me  that 
any  such  motion  as  that  which  is  before  us  now  should 
have  been  offered  in  connection  with  the  consideration 
of  this  question.  Now,  sir,  that  it  has  been  brought  up 
before  us,  the  question  is  simply  this — Shall  we  meet  it, 
realizing  its  importance  ?  Shall  we  meet  it  boldly,  and 
face  the  difficulties  that  are  before  us,  and  send  forth  an 
expression  of  opinion  in  reference  to  it '?  Or  shall  we 
through  fear  that  any  evil  may  result  from  such  an  ex- 
pression of  opinion,  shrink  from  its  consideration  and 
show  ourselves  not  to  be  men  when  the  deepest  interests 
of  this  Church  are  involved.  It  has  been  said  here  that 
the  simple  taking  of  the  ayes  and  noes  would  lead  to 
great  evils  in  connection  with  it.  How  can  we  avoid 
it  ?  It  is  impossible  that  it  should  be  avoided.  When 
we  come  to  vote  upon  the  question  of  indefinite  post- 
ponement, it  is  a  decision  one  way  or  the  other — we 
either  decide  that  we  consider  the  subject  of  such  vast 
moment  that  it  becomes  us  as  the  representative  men  of 
the  Church  to  consider  and  decide  upon  its  interest,  or, 
if  we  indefinitely  postpone  it,  we  decide  we  will  not 
consider  it.  Suppose  that  the  question  is  laid  by — sup- 
pose that  it  is  indefinitely  postponed,  what  is  the  effect  ? 


Why,  it  goes  out  through  the  length  and  breadth  of  the 
land  that  this  question  which  has  so  occupied  minds  not 
only  of  members  of  this  Church  throughout  its  whole 
extent,  is  of  such  insignificance  that  we  do  not  consider 
it  worthy  of  our  consideration,  and  we  are  thereby  en- 
couraging, sustaining  and  carrying  on  the  very  evils 
which  we  here  now  deprecate  and  condemn.  It  has 
been  said  that  it  is  a  small  matter — that  these  ritualism 
practices  are  to  be  found  here  and  there  in  little 
churches — that  it  is  a  small  matter.  But  when  these 
evils  involving  important  doctrinal  questions  can  exist 
and  be  carried  on  in  this  land,  in  any  diocese,  without 
being  met  by  the  authorities  of  that  diocese ;  when 
leading  men  of  our  Church  will  come  and  stand  in  the 
pulpit  where  these  things  are  practised  and  thereby 
give  them  their  countenance  and  their  encouragement, 
what  is  the  impression  that  is  made  on  the  minds  of  the 
public  at  large.  Simply  that  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  has  not  the 
power  of  self-preservation  ;  that  it  is  so  comprehensive , 
that  evils  of  every  character  may  be  allowed  therein. 
We  are  encouraging  it ;  we  are  sustaining  it ;  we  are 
helping  it  on  ;  we  are  making  the  impression  all  through 
the  land  that  the  Church  does  allow  and  encourage  such 
things.  It  is  a  matter  of  small  importance  that  they 
should  exist  here  and  there ;  but  it  is  a  matter  of  vast 
importance  that  we  have  no  power  by  which  the  thing 
can  be  stopped.  Then  there  is  another  point  which 
has  been  raised — fault  by  defect.  I  deprecate  that  as 
much  as  the  other ;  but  important  doctrinal  questions 
touching  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  are  not  involved 
in  these  faults  by  defect  as  in  these  faults  by  excess. 
And  yet  we  would  be  made  to  believe  that  the  one  is  of 
equal  importance  with  the  other.  Not  only  so,  I  have 
never  known  so  many  sudden  conversions  to  toleration 
in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  as  I  have  witnessed 
here  in  this  House  in  the  last  few  days.  When  other 
questions  of  a  different  character  have  been  before  us, 
we  have  had  no  difficulty  in  acting  with  reference  to 
them  ;  but  so  soon  as  questions  of  this  character  come 
before  us,  there  is  a  loud  voice  for  toleration.  I  say 
that  evil  will  result  from  this.  There  are  other  things 
I  want  to  say,  but  I  think  I  had  better  not  say  them. 

The  Committee  on  Canons  reported  with  reference  to 
a  resolution  concerning  the  establishment  of  missionary 
organizations  under  charge  of  the  Bishop  of  unorgan- 
ized dioceses,  and  recommended  the  postponement  of 
the  matter  to  the  next  General  Convention. 

Message  No.  64,  from  the  House  of  Bishops  announc- 
ing concurrence  in  the  resolution  by  this  House  contin 
uing  the  Joint  Committee  on  the  Russo-Greek  Church, 
and  filling  a  vacancy. 

Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin  : — The  gentleman  from  Massachu- 
setts, has  told  us  of  certain  Unitarian  churches  in  Bos- 
ton which  have  been  erected  with  a  great  deal  of  orna- 
mentation and  symbolical  figures  of  various  kinds.  I 
wish  to  remind  the  gentleman  of  a  story  which  I  think 


189 


the  gentleman  himself  told  me  a  few  years  since ;  it  waa 
certainly  told  nie  by  some  gentleman  from  Boston.  The 
story  was  this,  that  some  Eijiscopal  clergyman  speaking 
to  some  Unitarian  clergyman  or  layman  asked  this 
question  :  "Why  is  it  that  if  we  introduce  crosses  and 
symbols  of  various  kinds  in  our  Episcopal  Churches, 
such  a  fuss  is  made  about  it,  but  you  in  the  Unitarian 
churches  can  introduce  all  manner  of  ctosses,  cruci- 
fixes, symbols,  anything  ;  and  nothing  is  thought  of  it^V" 
The  answer  of  the  Unitarian  was  :  "Because,  in  our 
meeting-houses  those  do  not  mean  anything ;  everybody 
knows  they  don't  mean  anything ;  but  among  Episcopa- 
lians it  is  understood  they  mean  something."  That  is  it, 
exactly  :  the  whole  thing  is  in  the  meaning.  That  I 
suppose  is  understood  all  around.  If  those  things  had 
no  meaning,  we  would  care  very  little  about  them. 
There  has  lieen  for  example,  a  doctrine  or  opinion  held 
in  this  Church  and  considered  as  allowable  in  regard  to 
the  minister  of  other  Protestant  bodies  as  being  though 
irregular  yet  a  true  minister  of  Christ,  an  opinion  which 
Bishop  Burnett  tells  us  was  the  prevailing  or  universally 
received  oijinion  tor  fifty  or  eighty  3'ears  after  the  adop- 
tion of  the  Thirty -nine  Articles.  Now,  may  we  sym- 
bolize that  doctrine  ?  Some  clergymen  have  proposed 
to  symbolize  it  by  invitmg  Presbyterian  or  Methodist 
clergymen  to  officiate  in  their  churches.  Shall  we  al- 
low that  they  sliall  symbolize  that  doctrine  bj'  puttmg 
a  Presbyterian  oi-  Methodist 'clergyman  into  their  pul- 
pit ?  We  said.  No  :  and  I  agree,  No.  1  jdeld  cheerfully ; 
I  make  no  objection;?.  We  do  know  that  was  not  called 
intolerance ;  that  was  tolerance.  The  question  was, 
shall  we  symbolize  Geneva.  The  Convention  has  said, 
No.  You  shall  not,  and  if  you  do  you  .shall  suft'er  for 
it.  That  is  tolerance.  Now,  when  the  question  comes, 
sh.all  we  symbolize  Rome,  it  is  asked  of  the  Convention 
affectionately  and  earnestly  to  appeal  to  the  hearts  and 
consciences  of  those  who  would  do  it  to  refrain  ;  and  that 
Mr.  President,  is  called  intolerance.  Now,  I  think  it  is 
fair  for  one  who  has  heartily,  chccrfullj',  joined  with  the 
general  sentiment  of  this  Convention  in  the  first  action, 
to  appeal  to  this  Convention  in  regard  to  this  charge  of 
intolerance.  It  is  but  an  expression,  affectionately  and 
earnestly  put  forth  by  this  Convention  against  symbol- 
izing Rome. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mahan  : — The  precise  movement,  great  or 
small,  that  is  going  on  in  the  Church  is  to  be  regarded 
merely  as  a  ripple  on  the  surface  of  a  placid  pool,  or  as 
part  and  parcel  of  some  great  tidal  movement  that  is 
going  on  in  the  Christian  world.  For  one  I  regard  it  as 
part  and  parcel  of  the  great  movement  that  is  going  on 
in  every  part  of  Christendom,  of  which  we  sec  the  signs 
cropping  out  wherever  we  maj'  look  abroad.  It  is  part 
of  that  great  morement  that  must  take  place  at  this 
time  or  some  future  time,  by  which  the  hearts  of  God's 
people  in  all  parts  of  the  world  shall  be  drawn  together, 
and  by  which  differences  on  things  merely  non-essential 
shall  be  done  away  in  the  spirit  of  a  common  loyalty  to 


our  Divine  Master  and  to  His  cause  here  on  earth.  I 
say  this  ritual  movement  is  merely  a  part  of  that  great 
tidal  movement  that  is  going  on  everywhere.  Look  at 
the  various  denominations  around  us.  And  I  would 
ask  any  person  here  present  who  has  passed  the  bounds 
of  even  middle  life,  whether  among  the  Methodists,  the 
Presbyterians,  the  Congregationalists — whether  among 
all  the  denominations  of  this  country,  he  has  not  seen 
the  tide  continually  rising,  by  which  things  that  were 
once  on  narrow  and  insufficient  grounds  rejected  among 
them  have  been  adopted  quietly  again.  Where  for  ex- 
ample, the  sound  of  the  organ  in  the  church  of  God 
was  considered  a  bad  omen, — that  sound  is  now  regard- 
ed almost  as  a  necessary  part  of  Church  worship.  Where 
a  church  approaching  at  all  to  the  Gothic  style  of  archi. 
tecture  was  regarded  as  belongmg  to  the  mystery  of 
abomination,  that  is  regarded  as  a  harmless  thing  ;  and 
so  in  innumerable  instances.  I  would  mention  one 
point  especially  which  has  not  been  alluded  to  during 
the  course  of  debate.  It  is  that  the  Church  of  Rome 
itself,  which  we  regarded  and  justly,  too,  with  dread 
and  so  much  aversion,  at  least  with  reg.-;rd  to  certain 
parts  of  her  doctrine, — that  Church  of  Rome,  under  the 
influences  that  are  brought  to  bear  in  this  land,  has 
abandoned  in  a  great  measure  the  narrow  policy  of  con- 
fining herself  to  certain  worn-out  forms,  and  is  availing 
herself  of  every  instrumentality  that  can  be  brought 
to  bear  upon  the  hearts  of  men.  Why,  sir,  at  this  very 
time,  that  great  policy  of  the  Church  of  Rome — that 
divine  service  must  be  confined  to  one  language— has 
been  broken  through  here  and  there- — everywhere. 
And  why  '?  Because  the  Roman  Church  is  wise.  She 
has  found  that  speaking  to  men  in  their  native  tongues, 
at  least  in  hymns  is  serviceable,  and  is  now  availing 
herself  of  the  instrumentalities  of  Protestantism  that 
will  advance  her  cause ;  and  when  she  finds  that  any- 
thing of  that  kind  will  advance  her  cause,  she  begins  to 
tolerate  it,  and  so  you  find  that  the  revival  system  is 
adopted.  She  has  the  boldness  and  wisdom  that  when 
she  finds  that  anything  will  tell,  she  adopts  it,  she  tol- 
erates it,  and  incorporates  it  in  her  system.  When  the 
armies  of  Anti-Christ  are  gathering,  and  when  the  Lord 
(iod  Almighty  is  invisibly  moving  among  His  people  in 
all  parts  of  the  world  to  bring  them  together,  the  real 
question  for  Christian  men  to  consider  is  whether  to 
stand  trifling,  and  disputing  about  these  small  points. 
It  is  merely  a  question  in  regard  to  instrumentalities  ; 
and  if  we  look  at  the  things  mentioned  in  the  resolu- 
tions, which  are  given  us  by  the  minority,  and  of  which 
so  many  members  on  this  floor  have  spoken  as  if  neces- 
sarily identified  with  a  false  system,  I  would  ask  this 
Convention  for  one  moment  patiently  to  consider 
whether  they  are  willing  as  Christian  men,  loyal  to  God 
and  to  Holy  Scripture,  to  agree  tliat  these  things  must 
be  identified  with  a  false  system.  Take  them  one  by 
one.  There  is  the  burning  of  lights  in  the  order  for  the 
Holy  Communion.     Now,   be  it   understood  that  I  am 


190 


not  advocating  the  introduction  of  any  of  these  things  ; 
I  am  merely  answermg  the  question  whether  tliese 
things  can  beidentitied  with  that  system,  so  that  system 
must  have  them  and  no  other.  The  lights  upon  the 
altar ;  those  two  lights  that  we  have  before  us ;  is  there 
any  definition  of  them,  is  there  any  symbolism,  that  is 
identical  with  the  doctrine  of  Rome  particularly  ?  It 
seems  almost  trifling  to  answer  the  question.  We  know 
that  so  far  as  they  have  any  meaning — I  don't  say 
necessarily  that  thej'  have  any  meaning-but  so  far  as  any 
person  has  attributed  any  kind  of  meaning  to  them,  it 
is  simply  the  great  Christian  fundamental  idea  of  the 
two  natures  united  in  the  person  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ ;  to  whose  name  I  would  bow  not  merely  in  the 
creed,  but,  in  my  heart  at  least,  whenever  that  name 
comes  to  my  mind.  Reverences  to  the  Holy  Table.  I 
do  not  know  precisely  what  reverences  are.  That 
there  should  be  a  reverential  demeanor  that  there  may 
be  at  least  same  outward  sign  of  a  reverent  spirit — this 
may  be  adopted  in  the  Church  or  it  may  not.  But  sup 
pose  one  does  pay  a  reverence  to  the  altar  of  God  in 
acknowledgment  of  the  Divine  presence  and  power, — 
does  that  identify  one  necessarily  with  the  corruptions 
of  the  Roman  Church.  Such  reverences  have  prevailed 
in  every  branch  of  the  Church  in  all  parts  of  the  world 
They  are  thoroughly  consistent  with  the  most  earnest 
protest  against  the  corruptions  of  Rome.  Again  ;  in 
regard  to  incense.  Here  again  I  suppose  it  is  necessary 
to  say  that  1  am  not  advocating  the  introduction  of  in- 
cense, but  1  am  merely  asking  the  question,  does  any 
gentleman  here  identify  incense  with  the  Church  of 
Rome.  Did  it  or  did  it  not  prevail  in  the  dispensation 
appointed  by  God  himself  in  all  ages  before  Christianity? 
Did  or  did  it  not  prevail  in  the  early  Church  before  the 
usurpations  of  Rome  were  so  much  as  heard  of?  Does 
it  not  prevail  in  the  Eastern  Church  to  the  present 
day  where  the  usurpations  of  Rome  are  denied  ?  Nay, 
does  it  not  prevail  in  that  great  ideal  Church  presented 
to  us  in  the  Apocalypse,  where  the  incense  is  otfered  up, 
being  the  prayers  of  the  Saints  ?  Now,  with  these  great 
'  ideas  before  us,  how  can  any  person  identify  incense 
with  anything  else  except  that  with  which  God's  Word 
identifies  it — namely,  as  a  symbol  of  the  prayers  of  the 
Saints.  I  do  not  say,  of  course,  that  incense  should  be 
introduced,  because  it  is  that,  but  I  am  merely  contend- 
ing that  this  Convention  has  no  business  to  go  against 
the  facts — no  right  to  say  that  incense  is  to  be  identi- 
fied wilh  a  thing  with  which  God's  Word  does  not  iden- 
tify it — no  business  to  go  against  the  Clear  Word  of 
God.     [Here  the  gavel  fell.J 

Rev.  Mr.  Hanckel  : — The  first  time  during  the  whole 
discussion  my  interest  has  been  aroused,  because  for  the 
first  time  in  the  utterance  of  the  gentleman  who  has  just 
taken  his  seat,  I  have  heard  the  real  questions  at  issue 
grappled.  I  refer  to  my  reverend  brother's  statement 
that  this  is  not  a  mere  question  of  outward  signs  or  sym- 
bols, nor  merely  a  question  of  a  ripple  on  the  surface,  but 


a  question  of  a  deep  tidal  movement.  Before  God  I  be* 
lieve  it  to  be  so.  I  regard  these  things  as  merely  exter- 
nal acts,  not  doctrines  ;  let  them  come  or  go.  If  a  man 
wants  a  surplice,  let  him  have  it,  and  of  whatever  color 
he  wants.  The  question  is — Does  there  lie  beneath  the 
surface  a  great  doctrinal  movement  ?  Before  God  I 
believe  there  is  such  a  movement  there ;  and  it  is  be- 
ause  I  do  believe  it  that  I  am  prepared,  as  one  whoc 
has  sworn  to  drive  from  God's  house  all  false  doctrine> 
to  cast  out  these  innovations.  The  gentleman  speaks  of  a 
tidal  movement  as  though  it  were  necessarily  onward. 
Is  there  no  ebb  as  well  as  flood  tide  ?  Is  there  no  ret- 
rogression as  well  as  progress  ?  Must  a  movement  be 
necessarily  onward  to  the  purity  of  God's  Word  and  the 
stability  of  His  Church  ?  History  teaches  no  such  lesson 
God's  people  under  the  teachings  of  the  Most  High 
through  His  prophets  had  a  constant  proclivity  back  to 
idolatry,  and  to  idolatry  they  went,  even  when  the  serv- 
ant of  God  was  upon  the  mountain  receiving  the  com- 
mandments from  His  hand.  Is  there  no  proclivity  in 
man's  nature  in  all  ages  of  the  world,  which  that  won- 
drous Church  of  which  the  gentleman  has  spoken,  has 
shown  such  consummate  wisdom  in  laying  hold  of  and  ap- 
plying to  her  purpose — a  masterpiece  of  Satanic  ingenu- 
ity fitting  in  every  nook  and  corner  of  every  fallen 
nature,  tj'ing  it  to  her  car  and  dragging  it  onward  in 
her  triumphal  progress?  What  is  the  real  objection 
lying  at  the  botton  of  the  hearts  of  all  this  Church  in 
reference  to  these  churches  ?  I  regret  they  were  not 
alluded  to  by  the  committee.  The  gentleman  has 
si)oken  of  the  tidal  movement  in  the  Romish  Church, 
forsooth,  adapting  herself  to  the  use  of  certain  instru- 
mentalities because  of  outward  pressure.  Consummate  in 
wisdom  she  has  never  failed  to  do  so ;  but  has  Rome 
changed  her  doctrinal  ground  one  iota  ?  Has  she  not 
rather  made  progress  in  her  way  ?  W^hat  means  her 
gigantic  strides  in  the  doctrine  of  infallibility  in  under- 
taking by  the  simple  fiat  of  her  chief  pastor  to  add 
another  article  to  the  creed.  What  means  this  frightful 
advance  toward  a,fthurch  that  has  actually  proposed  in 
this  Nineteenth  Century  to  change  the  very  words  in 
which  the  Lord  taught  us  to  pray,  into  "Our  Lady,"  in- 
stead of  "Our  Father"  to  be  used  only  occasionally  for 
the  sake  of  association  ?  Is  it  toward  such  a  church 
wliose  progress  is  deeper  and  deeper  in  the  depths  of 
abysmal  error  that  we  are  called  upon  to  make  a  friend- 
ly movement  V  God  in  mercy  forbid  it !  God  in  mercy 
lorbid  such  a  peace  as  is  here  proposed !  As  to  the  fact 
of  a  tidal  movement  as  indicated  in  this  fourth  resolution, 
I  assume  that  none  who  do  practise  these  things,  being 
men  of  God,  know  wliat  they  do.  I  assume  that  they 
would  not  go  into  God's  house  to  be  guilty  of  the  puerile 
practices  that  would  be  positively  ludicrous  separate 
from  their  association.  They  know,  sir,  that  they  sym- 
bolize something ;  and  they  symbohze  to  my  mind  fun- 
damental error. 

Now,  sir,  I  will  not  comment  on  the  burning  of  lights 


191 


in  the  order  for  the  Holy  communion,  although  that  as 
an  innovation  night  be  excepted  to  as  an  advance  in 
symbolism — teaching  by  sign — a  symbol  addressed  to 
the  eye  instead  of  as  we  are  taught  by  liim  who  sent  us, 
by  preaching  his  gospel  to  every  creature — teaching  that 
faith  is  to  come  by  the  eye,  by  sighl,  and  not  as  he 
has  ordained,  by  heariug— teaching  that  the  eye  and  not 
the  understanding  is  the  channel  through  which  truth  is 
to  reach  man,  and  by  truth  man  is  to  be  regenerated 
and  saved  from  death  and  hell. 

As  to  burning  incense — burned  it  was  under  the 
old  law  as  a  symbol,  because  the  truth  itself  was  not  yet 
revealed ;  burned  it  was  in  a  corrupt  church  when  that 
truth  began  to  be  concealed  again  from  forgetfulness 
and  from  sinking  into  oblivion  in  consequence.  It  is 
burned  in  heaven  !  Does  the  gentleman  really  suppose 
that  there  material  incense  and  swinging  censer  surround 
the  throne  of  Him  who  is  worshipped  only  by'the  immate- 
rial spirits?  Most  surely  not.  And  therefore,  he  must 
in  candor  own,  that  it  is  only  a  figure  of  speech,  and 
therefore  not  to  be  literally  interpreted  here  on  earth.' 
And  now  as  to  reverences  to  the  holy  table  or  to  the 
elements:  He  says  he  does  not  understand  what  is 
meant  by  reverences  with  profound  genuflexions  and 
even  prostrations  before  what  is  called  the  altar  because 
the  faith  is  received  that  in  the  elements  there  placed, 
the  body,  blood  and  divinity  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
are  present.  But  they  are  not  present ;  it  is  nothing 
but  rank  idolatry  and  a  direct  violation  of  the  second 
commandment,  which  commands  us  not  to  bow  down,  as 
well  as  not  to  worship,  anynnrely  external  and  visible 
thing.  But  if  it  is  taught  that  in  any  sense  Christ  the 
Lord  in  his  body  and  divinity  are  present  in  those  ele- 
and  upon  that  altar,  I  challenge  the  production  of  the 
name  of  any  Anglican  divine  of  any  standing,  confirm- 
ing that  doctrine. 

Rev.  Dr.  DeKoven  : — It  is  a  very  curious  line  of  ar- 
gument which  is  used  by  my  brethren,  on  the  other 
side,  with  regard  to  this  matter,  and  1  think  it  very  de- 
sirable that  the  Convention  should  notice  it.  It  is  said, 
over  and  over  again,  that  this  is  a  matter  of  the  deep- 
est importance — that  tliere  is  agitation  all  through  the 
Church  about  it.  More  than  that — it  is  not  a  question 
of  rites  and  ceremonies,  but  a  doctrinal  question,  involv- 
ing the  deepest  and  most  important  doctrines  of  this 
Church  ;  and  it  has  been  said,  over  and  over  again,  that 
it  is  unmanly,  it  is  cowardly,  it  is  not  in  accordance 
with  the  dignity  of  this  House,  not  to  meet  these  ques- 
tions boldly,  in  a  straightforward  way.  Now,  I  beg  to 
ask  the  question,  how  do  they  propose  to  meet  it? — the 
question  which,  according  to  these  gentlemen,  ought  to 
shake  this  Church  to  the  very  foundation,  and  which 
involves  doctrines  of  the  utmost  importance.  They 
propose  to  meet  it,  sir,  how  ?  By  joint  resolution  !  Is 
that  the  way  in  which  this  Church  means  to  deal  with 
questions  which  shake  it  to  its  foundation  ?  Is  this 
House  prepared  to  take  up  great  doctrinal  questions — 


principles  of  the  very  gravest  consideration — and  settle 
them  by  joint  resolutions?  Joint  resolutions  are  valu- 
able things.  They  are  valuable,  permit  me  to  say,ju8t 
when  and  how  they  express  the  mind  of  this  Church, 
as  of  old.  They  are  feeble  and  ineflectual,  unless  they 
do  so.  Permit  me  to  call  the  attention  of  this  House 
to  something  in  the  history  of  this  Church.  In  the 
year  1811  the  House  of  Bishops  and  this  House  passed 
the  following  resolution: — 

"Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  Cliurch  that  it  is  in- 
cousistent  with  the  law  of  God,  and  the  ministers  of  this 
Church,  therefore,  shall  not  unite  in  matrimony,  any  per- 
son who  is  divorced,  unless  it  be  on  account  of  the  other 
party  having  beeu  guilty  of  adultery." 

That  resolution  lay  upon  the  journal  of  this  House 
for  years  and  years,  and  this  very  session  of  this  Gen- 
eral Convention  we  have  passed  a  canon  upon  that  very 
subject,  because  somehow,  or  in   some  way   it  had  no 
effect.     Now,  let  me  say  that  if  this  matter  is  to  be  met, 
it  ought  to  be  met  b}'  law.     If  it  is  iniportatit,  it  should 
be  met  by  law;  and  here  we  are  met  by  the  remarka- 
ble fact  that  both  the  majority  and  the  minority  of  this 
committee  express  the  opinion — and,  I   believe,  the  al- 
most universal  opinion  of  this  House  is,  that  we  are  not 
prepared  for  legislation  on  this  subject.     There  are  very 
grave  difBculties  in  the  way.     The  doctrine  of  the  Holy 
Eucharist,  no  one  will  pretend  to  say,  is,  by  any  means, 
an  unimportant  thing,  whatever  view  is  held  about  it. 
It  affects  the  highest  interests,  the  highest  spiritual  re- 
lations, the  loftiest  devotion   of  the  members   of  this 
Church.     And  shall  you  take  up  a  doctrine  of  that  kind, 
and  in  the  midst  of  the  time  of  a  heated  discussion,  in 
the  midst  of  the  time  when  the  world,  outside,  is  press- 
ing us  through  the  columns  of  newspapers,  and  decide 
anything   about  it,    by  joint  resolution  ?     Everybody 
knows  thiit  some  of  these  practices  that  are  put  down 
in    this   resolution    were    practised    in    the    undivided 
Church,  before   transubstantiation  was  ever  heard  of. 
Transubstantiation  is  a  doctrine  that  was  introduced  in 
the  tenth  century.     Is  this  House  prepared  to  say  to 
this  Church  and  this  nation  that  history  is  wrong,  and 
that  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  was  symbolized 
in  the  Church  of  God  before  it  was  heard  of?     Is  this 
House  prepared   to  say,  as   a  matter  of  fiict,  that  the 
Lutheran   body,  which  denounced   transubstantiation, 
acknowledges  this   very  proposition  by  symbolizing  a 
doctrine  which  it   has   always  denied?     Is  this  House 
prepared  to  say  that  the  Great  Eastern  Church,  which 
has  these  syuibols,  affirms  transubstantiation,   when  it 
has  been  asserted  by  one  of  the  noblest  and  greatest  di- 
vines (the  late   Metropolitan  of  the  Eastern  Church — 
Russo-Greek  Church)  that  it  did  not  hold  transubstan- 
tiation ?     I  bring  forward   these  matters  to  show  that 
this  House  ought  not  to  do  anything  hastily  on  so  im- 
portant a  matter,  and  that  this  House  is  not  prepared, 
and  ought  not  to  bo  prepared  to  enter  upon  so  grave  a 
question. 

One  thing  more,  and  this  to  me  is  something  of  the 


19'2 


deepest  importance.  Ft  has  been  said  that  this  is  a  tidal 
movement,  and  I  would  ask  my  brethren  who  disagree 
with  me  whether  they  are  prepared  to  force  it  upon  peo- 
ple who  disagree  with  them,  that  this  movement  is  actu- 
ally towards  what  they  reprehend.  Supposing  it  should 
turn  out  that  it  is  not  a  movement  toward  Rome,  but 
toward  something  else  which  they  believe  in  just  as  much 
as  we  do.  Mi.  President,  I  believe  that  this  movement 
is  a  protest  in  the  Church  of  God  against  Rationalism. 
I  believe  it  is  a  protest  towards  the  belief  in  the  Lord  Je- 
sus Christ — not  stories  about  Him,  not  talk  about  Him, 
not  feelings  about  Him,  not  even  His  history;  but  it  is, 
sir,  the  feeling  of  this  Church  manifesting  itself  toward 
the  belief  in  Him— Him,  pressing  it  upon  the  Church — 
Him,  speaking  in  His  ministry — Him,  speaking  in  His 
word — Him,  giving  grace  in  His  sacraments — Him  whom 
never  having  seen  we  love,  in  whom  though  now  we  see 
Him  not,  yet  believing,  we  rejoice  with  joy  unspeakable 
and  full  of  glory.  And  I  beseech  my  brethren  not  to 
say  that  this  thing  should  be  put  down.  Do  not  force 
into  a  position  they  do  not  hold,  those  who  do  not  want 
to  differ  with  their  brethren,  who  prefer  to  act  in  a  calm, 
simple,  earnest  manner,  guided  and  influenced  by  the 
tone  of  the  Church.  It  is  a  great  mistake  to  suppose 
that  the  priests  of  this  Church  are  not  bound  even  now. 
Will  any  one  say  that  a  clergyman  of  this  Church  is  not 
at  present,  even  without  joint  resolution  or  canon,  bound 
in  all  these  matters  V  I  do  not  have  any  parish ;  I  have 
no  vestry ;  yet  I  know  that  clergymen  everywhere  are 
at  the  mercy  of  their  vestry;  and  would  like  to  know 
if  any  clergyman  can  advance  this  kind  of  things  with- 
out being  exposed  to  being  turned  out  by  their  vestries? 
I  do  not  mean  to  say  it  is  an  absolute  restriction,  but  it 
is  a  restriction.  Our  clergymen  are  bound  by  the  gen- 
eral tone  and  temper  of  their  dioceses.  There  may  be 
factious  people  in  the  Church;  I  know  there  are;  but  I 
say  we  do  not  want  to  be  in  opposition  to  our  brethren, 
and  it  is  hard  to  be  so.  We  are  impelled  and  mean  to 
be  impelled  by  the  general  influences,  temper,  and  tone 
of  the  Church  of  God.  Again,  sir — [and  here  the  gavel 
fell.] 

Rev.  Dr.  Littlejohn  : — I  am  entirely  ready  to  take 
the  question  which  is  now  before  the  House,  which 
I  believe  to  be  on  the  indefinite  postponement  of 
the  whole  subject  I  wish  merely  to  say  that  if  that 
motion  fail,  as  I  believe  that  it  will,  we  have  indications 
enough  in  the  House  to  show  that  there  is  a  disposition 
here  to  meet  what  is  called  the  issue  that  has  been  pre- 
sented ;  and  I  do  not  think  after  the  debate  that  has  oc- 
curred that  any  member  of  this  House  is  disposed — to 
use  the  phrase  which  has  been  used  on  this  floor — to 
shrink  from  this  matter.  I  think  the  courage  of  the 
House  has  been  steadily  increasing  with  every  speech 
made  on  the  floor.  One  of  the  speakers  characterized 
the  debate  which  has  been  had  upon  this  whole  subject 
as  a  rambling  and  irrelevant  debate.  In  all  of  my  ex- 
perience I  have  never  known  a  debate  that  confined  it-  | 


self  more  closely  to  the  subject  in  hand  than  that  to 
which  we  have  listened  since  yesterday.  I  have  never 
known  a  debate  characterized  b}'  better  temper,  by 
kindlier  feeling,  by  broader  views  upon  this  whole  sub- 
ject. It  was  with  anxiety  that  I  looked  forward  to  the 
discussion  of  this  subject.  I  have  listened  with  eager- 
ness for  the  first  word  that  could  be  construed  in  such 
a  way  as  to  reflect  upon  the  temper  of  this  House.  That 
word  has  not  been  spoken.  Moreover  this  debate,  if 
no  practical  action  shall  be  taken,  has  brought  out  dec- 
larations of  opinion  and  affirmations  of  principle  that 
in  my  own  judgment  will  be  of  permanent  value  to  this 
Chmxh.  When  I  listened  to  the  lay  deputy  from  Illi- 
noi.s  yesterday,  declaring  as  he  did  with  so  much 
power  and  so  much  eloquence  and  as  if  holding  in  his 
grasp  the  concentrated  testimony  of  history,  the  great 
principle  of  historical  continuity  of  this  Church  from 
the  days  of  the  Apostles ;  when  I  heard  another  lay 
deputy  rise  here  and  in  his  own  peculiar  manner  and 
language  that  never  fails  to  interest  this  House  and 
cliallenge  its  attention,assert  that  in  virtue  of  the  compre- 
hension of  this  Church  she  must,  from  her  very  consti- 
tution, provide  for  a  large  diveri-ity  of  opinion  and  of 
taste — that  she  nui.st  therefore,  of  necessity,  be  tolerant 
— that  she  must  have  a  certain  breatdh  of  sympathy  and 
of  action  ;  when  I  heard  another  gentleman  on  this 
floor  arguing  in  behalf  of  the  elasticity  of  this  Church, 
Vjecause  she  is  a  living  body  and  not  a  dead  mechanism, 
because  she  must  from  her  verj'  genius  and  constitution 
provide  for  the  organic  development  and  growth  of  the 
body,  because  it  is  a  living  body, — why  sir,  put  togeth- 
er these  three  affirmations  of  principle — the  historical 
continuity  of  this  Church,  its  toleration,  and  its  breadth, 
and  you  have  a  sufficient  amount  of  practical  philosophy 
upon  this  whole  matter  to  bring  this  House,  in  my 
judgment,  to  a  safe  conclusion  upon  this  subject. 
Therefore  I  say  that  I  feel  that  though  no  practical  ac- 
tion sliall  be  taken,  the  debate  which  has  been  had 
here  is  of  permanent  value  to  the  Church.  But  it  seems 
to  me — I  have  gathered  it  from  private  conversa- 
tion with  the  deputies  on  this  floor — that  this  House  has 
about  determined  that  it  is  scarcely  of  any  practical 
moment  to  adopt  the  resolutions  which  have  been  re- 
ported by  either  branch  of  the  Committee  on  Canons. 
I  think,  as  I  have  stated,  that  this  House  has  about  de- 
termined that  it  will  not  indefinitely  postpone  the  con- 
sideration of  this  subject.  I  therefore  have  arisen  not 
with  the  view  to  speak  of  any  details  involved  in  this 
issue,  but  simply  to  offfer  for  the  consideration  of  this 
House,  in  case  it  shall  vote  down  the  motion  for  indefi-. 
nite  postponement,  a  series  of  resolutions  which  f  am  in 
structed  to  say  are  prescntfed  by  me  after  due  consult- 
ation with  influential  members  of  this  body  ;  and  I 
believe  they  will  surely  command  the  hearty  approval 
of  a  number  of  the  delegations  on  this  floor.  I  would 
state  that  these  resolutions  in  point  of  fact  embody  sug- 
gestions which  have  been  made  already  to  this  House_ 


193 


They  are  not  original  with  myself.     The  resolutions  are 
as  follows : 

Resolved,  That  the  House  of  Bishops  be  requested  to 
set  forth  for  consideration  and  adoption  by  the  next 
General  Convention  such  additional  rubrics  in  the  Book 
of  Common  Prayer  as  in  their  judgment  may  be  deemed 
necessary. 

Resolved,  That,  meanwhile  in  all  matters  doubtful, 
reference  should  be  made  to  the  ordinary,  and  no  changes 
should  be  made  against  the  godly  counsel  and  judgment 
of  a  bishop. 

These  are  the  words  with  which  the  last  resolution 
of  the  majority  of  the  committee  conclude 

Resolved,  That  the  reports  of  the  majority  and  mi- 
nority of  tlie  Committee  on  Canons  be  transmitted  to 
the  House  of  Bishops. 

The  Pkesident  : — The  question  is  upon  indefinite 
postponement  of  the  subject  before  the  House. 

Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin  :^I  call  for  the  question  by 
dioceses  and  orders. 

The  President  : — Is  it  worth  while  to  have  a  vote  by 
dioceses  and  orders  on  this  subsidiary  question  V 

A  Deputy — said  the  vote  by  dioceses  and  orders 
would  not  be  insisted  upon  if  the  motion  for  indefinite 
postponement  should  be  withdrawn. 

The  Deputy  (Rev.  Mr.  Dashiell,  of  Maryland) — 
who  made  the  motion  for  indefinite  postponement  was 
found  to  be  absent  at  this  moment,  and  it  was  withdrawn 
on  his  behalf  by  another  member  of  the  Maryland  delega- 
tion, who  seconded  the  motion  by  Dr.  Littlejohn. 

Rev.  Dr.  Littlejohn  : — In  order  to  submit  the  reso- 
lutions in  their  proper  order,  I  move  them  as  an  amend- 
ment to  the  substitute  for  the  majority  report. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mahan  : — I  would  say,  for  one,  very  briefly 
that  I  think  members  ought  to  consider  a  moment  be- 
fore they  vote  without  debate  upon  a  subject  which  is 
so  very  new  as  that  contained  in  the  first  resolution.  It 
may  be  convenient  for  this  present  debate,  but  this  pre- 
paring of  rubrics  for  the  Prayer  Book  is  a  serious 
matter. 

The  President  : — It  gives  three  years  to  think  of  it. 

A  Deputy: — For  these  rubrics  to  become  part  of  the 
Prayer  Book  they  must  be  ratified  by  the  next  General 
Convention  and  go  down  to  the  dioceses. 

The  President  : — They  will  not  be  prepared 'til  the 
next  General  Convention  ;  then  they  will  be  sent  down 
by  the  next  one  and  ratified  afterwards.     [Laughter.] 

Hon.  S.  B.  RuGGLES: — I  wish  simply  to  explain  the 
difference  between  Dr.  Littlejohn's  proposition  and  mine. 
My  own  proposition  was  to  refer  the  subject  of  preparing 
rubrics  to  the  House  of  Bishops  ;  but  he  adds  that  until 
they  do  prepare  them,   each  bishop  is  to  prepare  them. 

Rev.  Dr.  Little.iohx  : — Oh,  no,  sir. 

Hon.  S.  B.  Rlggles  : — What  is  it  then  ?  [Laughter.] 

Rev.  Dr.  Littlejohn  : — The  second  resolution  is 
presented  in  the  very  words,  ipsissima  verba,  of  the  close 
of  the  last  resolution  of  the  majority  of  the  committee, 
that  in    matters   doubtful,  reference,  until  the  House  of 

25 


Bishops  shall  act  in  this  matter  in  their  collective  capaci- 
ty, shall  be  had  to  the  ordinary,  and  no  changes  shall  be 
made  contrary  to  his  judgment. 

Hon.  S  B.  Ruggles: — That  simply  gives  the  power 
to  the  bishop.  I  do  not  say  it  is  objectionable  but  I  wish 
to  point  out  the  difference. 

A  Deputy  :— Is  it  in  order  to  ofl"er  an  amendment  to 
this? 

The  President  : — No,  sir.  If  the  minority  report 
had  been  offered  as  an  amendment  instead  of  a  substi- 
tute, a  substitute  for  the  -whole  could  be  offered. 

The  Secketary — explained  that  the  minority  report 
was  presented  to  the  House  as  an  amendment. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead  : — It  was  the  manner  in  which  the 
matter  was  presented  to  the  House. 

The  President  : — It  is  the  right  way  to  do  it. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead  :— Certainly.     [Laughter.] 

Rev.  Dr.  Van  Deusen  : — I  then  ofTor  as  a  substitute 
for  the  whole  the  two  resolutions  of  which  I  gave  notice, 
to  be  found  on  the  64th  page  of  the  journal  of  the  Gen- 
eral Convention  of  1844.  I  offer  those  two  resolutions 
as  a  substitute  for  the  whole.  [These  resolutions  were 
printed  above.] 

The  President  : — The  question  will  be  upon  adopt- 
ing those  two  resolutions  as  a  substitute  for  all  the  other 
questions  before  the  House. 

Rev.  Di.  Paddock: — I  want  to  ask  if  we  are  to  un- 
derstand that  those  who  vote  in  the  affirmative  decline 
altogether  making  any  declaration  whatsoever  as  to  the 
mind  of  this  House  in  regard  to  this  question  which  is 
agitating  the  Church. 

The  President  : — The  resolutions  express  that  very 
thing. 

Rev.  Dr.  Paddock  : — I  want  to  ask  if  that  resolution 
drawn  for  an  entirely  different  purpose  is  considered  by 
this  House  suitable  to  fit  in  for  this  new  question  which 
has  arisen  since  that  resolution. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haigiit  : — I  do  really  think  it  beneath  the 
dignity  of  this  Convention  representing  this  Church  in 
18G8  to  go  back  to  that  Convention  of  1844,  and  take 
resolutions  oflfered  tor  a  totally  different  purpose  as  ex- 
pressing the  sense  of  this  House.  It  is  the  most  palpable 
confession  of  weakness  I  have  ever  heard.  It  would  be 
a  disgrace  tons. 

Rev.  Dr.  Adams  : — I  would  say  it  is  a  confession  of 
difficulty  but  not  weakness. 

Rev.  Dr.  Howe: — Then  I  call  for  the  vote  by  dio- 
ceses and  orders. 

The  question  was  then  taken  and  resulted  as  follows  : 
Clerical  representatives,  34;  Ayes,  11  ;  Noes.  21  ;  Di- 
vided, 2. 

Lay  representatives,  30 ;  Ayes,  7 ;  Noes,  20 ;  Divided, 
3. 

The  substitute  was  thereupon  declared  lost. 

Messages  Nos.  65,  66,  67  and  68  from  the  House  of 
Bishops  were  here  received ;  the  last  resolution  being  an 
expression  of  the  sympathy  of  the  House  of  Bishops  in 


194 


relation  to  the  tleath  of  the  most  Reverend  Francis  Ful- 
ford,  D.  !>.,  Metropolitan  of  Canada  ;  in  wliich  resolu- 
tion, on  motion  of  Rev  Dr.  Haight,  the  House  con- 
curred. 

On  motion  of  Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin,  the  House  concurred 
with  the  House  of  Bishops  in  message  No.  66,  with  ref- 
erence to  Alaska. 

Rev.  Dr.  Watson,  of  North  Carolina,  oflFered  the 
following  substitute: 

Whereas,  it  has  been  represented  to  this  General 
Convention,  that  the  peace  of,  the  Church  has  been  dis- 
turbed by  ritual  practices  on  the  part  ot  some  of  the 
clergy  in  supposed  contravention  ot  the  usuages  of  this 
Church,  and  symbolic  of  false  doctrine,  and  on  the  part 
of  others  by  departures  from  the  custom.s  of  the  Church, 
by  way  of  delect,  therefore, 

Eesolred:  That,  while  recognizing  the  conflict  of  opin- 
ion which  exists  upon  this  subject  and  the  resulting  dis- 
quietudes, and  while  condemning  all  useless  and  unau- 
tliorized  aberrations  whether  by  excess  or  by  defect  from 
the  customs  of  the  Church,  and  especially  all  usages 
which  symbolize  doctrines  against  which  our  Refornied 
branch  of  the  Church  has  solemnly  protested;  this  Con- 
vention is  pursuadccUthat  the  best  cure  for  the  evil 
complained  of,  is  to  be  found  in  the  recognition  of  the 
great  rule  of  "iinil//  in  esxenlials,  liberty  iii,  non-essen- 
tials, and  charity  in  all  Ihinys." 

Resolved,  that  this  Convention  do  earnestly  and  af- 
fectionately remind  the  Clergy  and  Laity  of  the  Church 
that  they  are  brethren,  and  do  beseech  them  to  aim  to 
be  of  one  mind,  as  well  as  of  one  heart,  and  for  Christ's 
sake  to  seek  the  things  which  make  lor  Peace  and  Edi- 
fication, and  after  the  example  of  the  blessed  Apostle 
Paul,  to  avoid  those  things,  which  however  innocent  in 
themselves,  yet  cause  their  brethren  to  stumble  or  to 
be  oH'ended. 

liesolved,  that  in  all  questions  of  ritual  observance, 
arrangement,  furniture,  or  decoration,  1191  determined 
by  the  Rubrics  or  Canons  of  the  Church,  and  in  all 
questions  of  the  interpretation  of  the  Piubiicsor  Canons, 
upon  this  subject,  the  Clergy  and  Laity  are  urged  to  de-, 
fer  to  the  judgment  of  tbeu-  Bishops,  and  to  make  no 
change  against  their  godly  counsels. 

Rev.  Dr.  Watson,  (resuming): — It  seems  that  in  the 
specification  of  the  minority  report,  we  are  told  that  the 
House  of  Bishops  of  the  General  Convention  of  1814, 
specified  certain  sacraments  as  appropriate  to  the  minis- 
tr}',  and  a  point  was  made  of  this  yesterday.  Still  1 
would  like  to  draw  the  attention  of  the  Convention  to 
it  in  a  difierent  light.  Either  the  enumeration  was  a 
complete  specification,  or  it  was  not.  If  it  be  incom- 
plete, there  is  no  inference  to  be  drawn  from  it,  and  that  it 
is  mcomplete,  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  it  omits  ihe  stole. 
I  maintain  that  is  fatal  to  that  inference.  1  would  like 
to  say,  generally,  that  I  am  one  of  those  who  are  not  in 
the  habit  of  practicing  any  of  these  extreme  ritualistic 
observances.  I  officiate  in  the  good  old-fashioned  man- 
ner. I  am  not,  therefore,  personally  interested  in  any 
change;  but,  at  the  same  time,  I  think  there  are  others 
that  diifer  much,  and  within  the  bounds  of  the  law,  un- 
til a  principle  is  violated,  1  think  they  ought  to  have 
the  same  sort  of  liberty  I  desire  for  myself  I  do  not 
think  the  Church  is  in  a  position  to  determine  this  mat- 


ter. We  have  had  the  history  of  a  number  of  years,  and 
that  history  has  been  progressive.  The  answers  on  this 
subject  do  prove,  the  replies  from  Ohio  and  Virginia 
corroborate  the  assertion  that  there  lias  been  progress- 
ion. Why  may  there  not  still  be  some  progression  ? 
I  am  not  willing  to  sit  down  with  the  idea  that  we  have 
reached  the  old  red  sandstone  in  this  matter.  While  I 
am  perfectly  satisfied  with  the  arrangements  of  the 
Church  as  they  have  been,  while  I  do  not  expect  to 
change  them  in  my  own  practice,  at  the  same  time  I  like 
that  liberty  for  others.  I  maintain  that,  while  it  would 
be  a  great  harm  to  enforce  practices  to  which  the  peo- 
ple were  not  accustomed,  to  attend  church  where  those 
practices  are  used  is  a  different  case  in  a  city  like  this. 
It  does  seem  to  me  a  hardship  that  a  congregation,  who 
are  united  in  desiring  more  higlily  decorated  forms  of 
worship,  should  not  be  allowed  to  have  them,  provided, 
they  do  not  infringe  any  canon  or  law  of  the  Church. 
It  seems  to  me  a  part  of  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ 
has  made  us  free.  This  Church  is  a  Church  Catholic, 
intended  to  include  men  of  all  degrees  of  culture,  of  all 
degrees  of  taste ;  and  she  should  be  able  to  adapt  her- 
self to  all  as  she  sees  fit.  It  seems  to  me  there  are  two 
ways  out  of  the  difficulty — either  to  enforce  absolute 
uniformity  or  else  agree  that  these  things  are  not  essen- 
tial, and  allow  each  one  to  worship  in  the  way  which 
conduces  most  to  his  own  devotions. 

Rev.  W.  C.  Williams; — No  man  in  the  Church  who 
acted  with  any  regard  to  principle,  would  regard  these 
resolutions.  The  only  thing  that  controls  a  clergyman 
in  such  matters  are  the  rubrics  of  the  Church  and  the 
only  person  to  whom  he  looks  is  his  bishop.  He  has 
promised  obedience  to  his  bishop  but  not  to  this  body. 
If  this  body  speaks  by  canon  or  rubric,  then  all  men  are 
bound.  If  we  are  going  to  do  anything,  it  oughl  to  be 
by  rubric.  It  has  ever  seemed  to  me  very  desirable 
that  a  set  of  rubrics  should  be  in  our  Prayer-Book  to 
settle  this  question.  If  one  man  has  a  right  to  wear  one 
gown  and  another  has  a  right  to  wear  another  gown,  we 
have  no  law  except  a  common  law.  But  if  the  bishops 
will  set  forth  and  prepare  a  set  of  rubrics,  givmg  the 
license — I,  for  one,  believe  a  good  deal  of  license  ought 
to  be  made — it  is  very  desirable.  It  has  ever  seemed  to 
me  that  it  is  important  that  in  the  I'rayer-Book 
there  should  be  some  general  rules  as  to  the  vestments, 
and  giving  men  wide  limits  to  vary.  I  hope,  therelbrei 
to  see  the  resolutions  of  the  deputy  from  New  York 
adopted. 

Mr.  Cornwall  : — I  have  a  resolution  which  I  would 
offer  in  case  the  resolutions  from  the  deputy  from  New 
York  are  voted  down.  I  have  no  speech  to  make 
about  it. 

Resolved,  That  the  report  of  the  majority  of  the 
Committee  on  Canons  on  the  conduct  of  public  worsliip 
be  published  in  the  journal  for  the  instruction,  warning, 
and  prayerful  consideration  of  the  clergy  and  laity  of 
this  Church,  with  the  ftirnest  hope  that  they  may  con- 
firm the  unitv  of  the  Church,  and  also  testify  our  adhe- 


195 


rence  to   the  sound   doctrine  of  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer. 

The  Pkesident  : — The  question  now  before  the 
House  is  the  substitute  by  the  gentleman  from  North 
Carolina. 

Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin  : — I  rise  to  a  point  of  order.  We 
have  resolutions  from  the  Connnittee  before  the  House, 
and  an  amendment  lo  an  amendment  is  proposed  ;  and 
thereupon  a  substitute  for  the  whole  matter  was  ottered 
by  the  gentleman  from  Western  New  York.  That  sub- 
stitute was  negatived.  My  question  is,  whether  it  is  in 
order  to  go  on  presenting  substitutes  without  end,  so 
we  may  never  reach  the  question  originally  presented. 
Here  is  another  substitute.     Is  that  in  order  ? 

The  Puesident  : — So  far  as  I  see,  there  is  no  limit 
except  ill  the  discretion  of  the  members  of  the  House. 

Rev.  Dr.  Pierce  : — I  see  no  limit,  and  move  to  lay 
the  whole  subject  on  the  table. 

Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin — called  for  a  vote  by  dioceses 
and  orders. 

A  vote  was  then  taken  upon  the  motion  to  lay  upon 
the  table ;  it  was  lost. 

The  Pkesident  : — The  question  now  recurs  upon  the 
substitute  of  the  gentleman  from  North  Carolina. 

Judge  Otis  : — There  is  authority  that  the  last  substi- 
tute is  not  in  order. 

The  Pkesident  : — It  has  been  suggested  that  the 
point  made  by  Dr.  Goodwin,  that  there  can  be  but  one 
substitute  in  order,  is  correct.  Practice  determines  it, 
and  these  experts  have  certified  that  that  is  the  prac- 
tice ;  and,  tl^^refore,  the  substitute  from  North  Caroli- 
na is  not  in  order. 

Rev.  Dr.  Adams  : — I  think  it  is  unfair  to  choke  any 
man  down  with  reference  to  this  great  debate,  and  I 
appeal  to  the  justice  and  equity  of  the  House.  1  hope 
that  in  this  House  we  shall  unanimously  pass,  or,  at  least, 
by  a  very  great  majority.  Dr.  Littlejohn's  amendment ; 
and  I  will  give  my  reasons  for  it.  In  the  first  place, 
this  has  been  fully  and  distinctly  brought  before  us, 
that  the  feeling  with  regard  to  these  minority  and  ma- 
jority reports  is, 'that  we  do  not  want  to  pass  them. 
We  think  there  is  a  little  too  much  preaching  in  them — 
that  tliere  ought  to  be  law,  and  not  resolutions.  Now, 
I  would  say  that  I  think,  considering  the  Committee  on 
Canons  and  the  men  that  are  in  it,  these  reports  should 
be  treated  with  the  highest  respect;  and  I  consider  that 
Dr.  Littlejohn  has  treated  them  with  the  highest  re- 
spect— conferred  upon  them  an  honor  which  has  seldom 
been  conferred  upon  any  reports  of  any  committee,  by 
transmitting  them  to  the  House  of  Bishops.  [Laughter.] 
I  will  consider  the  resolutions  in  a  reverse  order,  as  I 
suppose  I  have  a  right  to  do.  [Laughter.]  The  sec- 
ond resolution  of  Dr.  Littlejohn  is:  [Reads  the  reso- 
lution.] Now,  this  is  simply  a  principle  which  every 
man  of  this  House  holds  as  a  churchman.  I  do  not  say 
whether  he  be  a  high  churchman  or  low  churchman. 
It  is  in  our  ordination  office,  and  it  is  a  principle  of  us 


all  that  we  .should  defer  to  the  godly  counsel  of  our 
Bishop  ;  and  I  will  say  that  with  regard  to  the  men 
in  this  Church  going  to  Rome,  an  aberration  from  this 
principle  has  been  the  first  sign  of  their  schismatic  tem- 
per. I  will  say  that  there  are  some  men  who  called 
themselves  high  churchmen  twenty  years  ago,  and  were 
in  a  certain  style — that  is,  having  an  inclination  to  go 
to  Rome— who  felt  like  John  Randolph,  that  they  would 
go  a  mile  out  of  the  way  to  kick  a  Bishop.  [Laughter.] 
I  think  that  this  second  resolution  of  Rev.  Dr.  Little- 
john embodies  a  principle  upon  which  we  all  agree.  1 
will  go  to  the  first  resolution  : — 

"Resolved,  That  the  House  of  Bishops  be  requested," 
etc.     This   brings  it  before  the  Bishops.     It  supposes 
that  they  have  a  right  to  consider  such  a  thing  ;  it  sup- 
poses that  they  have  a  right  to  report   it,  that  is,  three 
years  hence  ;  it  then  supposes   that  that  would   come 
before  us.     Suppose  we  all  agree  to  pa-ss  it.     It  then 
goes  for  three  years  more ;    that  is  to  say,  it  takes  the 
time  of  six  years.     I  calculate   that  by  the  time  that 
has  come,  we  shall  be  a  little  cooler  on  the  matter  than 
now.     As  I  look  upon  it,  no  man  can  have  an  objection 
to  this  thing.     No  man  can  have  an  objection  to  adojit- 
ing  a  series  of  rubrics  which  will  put  an  end  to  all  this 
discussion,  one  way   or  another.     I  calculate  this  is  a 
very   desirable  resolution    to    propound   at   this  time. 
The  reason  that  I   agree  with  these  resolutions  of  the 
Reverend  Doctor,  and  uphold  them  with  all  my  heart 
and  soul  is,  that  I   recognize  that  in  this    Convention 
and  in  this   Church   there  arc  men  whose  hearts  and 
souls  are  right  before  God,  but  who  do  not  wish  to  be 
put  down  by  anybody  ;  that  is  to  say,  I  have  a  feeling 
that  good  men,  righteous  men,  true  men,  are  on  both 
sides.     I  belong  to   the  old   Bishop  Hobart  school.     I 
go  for  this  Church,  and  I  go  for  primitive  Christianity, 
antecedent  lo  the  union  of  Church  and  State.     I  believe 
there  are  certain  gentlemen  who  have  considerable  Uive 
for  the  Puritans,  and  I  would  say  with  regard  to  one  of 
these  Puritans   (Richard   Baxter)    I   have  heard  him 
praised   in   this  .Convention  ;  but  if  the  persons  ki.ew 
him  they  would  not  praise  him.     He  did  as  much  mis- 
chief in  the  Church  and  Slate  of  England  as  if  he  had 
no  piety  at  all.     It  vias  like    the  honesty  of  a  certain 
distinguished  representative  of  the  fourth  order  of  this 
Church,  who  did  as  much   mischief  as  if  he  had  no 
honesty  at  all,  and  yet  was  recognized  as  the  most  hon- 
est  man  in  the   world.     So   with   Richard   Baxter.     I 
recognize  that  any   resolution  of  this  House,  any   ex- 
pression of  its  will  has  the  greatest  weight  in  the  world, 
as  expressing  the   sentiments  of  thirty-five   dioce.«es  ; 
as  expressing  the   sentiments  of  learned  and  educated 
men.     Anything  we  say  against  gentlemen,  one  side  or 
the  other,  is  simply  a  club  to  knock  them  down.     I  do 
not  want  this  Convention  to  be  made  a  means  of  put- 
ting down,  even  by  implication,  any  man  who  professes, 
honestly  and  sincerely,  to  believe  in  the   doctrines  of 
the  Protestant   Episcopal    Church,  according  to    the 


196 


Prayer-Book ;  and  those  most  puritanically  inclined, 
and  those  most  ritualistically  inclined  I  recognize  as 
men  who  will  keep  to  this  test.  I  am  acquainted  with 
some  who  are  ritualistiii,  and  I  know  them  to  be  honest 
and  good  men ;  and  I  want  nothing  to  be  done  that 
shall  produce  the  appearance  or  the  feeling  that  this 
General  Convention  has  made  any  declaration,  whatso- 
ever, that  shall  have  the  appearance,  in  the  public  mind, 
of  putting  anj'  man  down  who  is  honestly  in  the  Church, 
who  is  not  tried  by  his  Bishop,  not  accused,  not  con- 
demned; and  for  these  reasons,  with  my  whole  heart 
and  soul,  I  go  for  the  resolutions  propounded  by  Dr. 
Littlejohn. 

Hon.  S.  B.  RuGGLES  : — I  second  the  resolutions  of  Dr. 
Littlejohn,  and  hope  they  will  pass. 

Rev.  Dr.  Howe  : — If  ever  we  can  get  at  a  direct  vote 
upon  the  resolutions  submitted  by  the  minority,  I  shall 
have  something  to  say  upon  the  subject,  if  I  can  obtain 
the  floor.  I  do  not  propose  to  enter  into  the  general 
merits  of  this  question,  at  this  time  and  in  this  con- 
nection ;  but  before  the  vote  is  taken  upon  the  propo- 
sition now  before  us,  I  wish  members  of  the  House  to 
be  made  to  realize  that  this  is  indeed  a  postponement 
of  the  whole  subject.  We  ask  the  House  of  Bishops 
to  set  forth  for  adoption  at  the  next  General  Conven- 
tion rubrics  touching  certain  things.  Well,  sir,  those 
rubrics  will  have  to  be  submitted  to  the  consideration 
of  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  of  the  next 
General  Convention.  If  they  chance  to  be  adopted  by 
the  two  houses,  they  then  have  to  go  down,  being  re- 
ported to  all  the  dioceses  of  the  land,  to  be  returned  to 
the  following  General  Convention,  and  then  conBrmed 
or  rejected.  So  that,  upon  this  whole  subject,  we  get 
nothing  accomplished  until  the  expiration  of  six  years. 
And  if  at  that  second  General  Convention  there  shall 
be  the  disposition  to  alter  a  single  word  that  has  been 
adopted  by  the  next  previous  Convention  (that  is,  the 
one  following  that  which  we  are  now  assembled  in),  it 
will  have  to  go  down  again  and  be  postponed  for  another 
three  years.  I  submit  to  members  of  this  House  that 
this  is  just  equivalent  to  putting  that  which  is  an  im- 
minent and  pressing  question,  which  bears  upon  this 
present  moment,  upon  which  the  hearts  of  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Church  in  all  parts  of  the  land  are  high- 
strung,  it  is  putting  that  question  off.  It  is  evading 
the  question  that  is  now  befoi-e  us.  Sir,  we  ask  the 
passage  of  our  resolutions  to  meet  this  present  stress  ; 
and  if  the  gentleman  after  the  passage  of  those  resolu- 
tions, will  propose  this  project  for  the  issuance  of  certain 
rubrics  by-and-by,  we  will  vote  for  them,  but  not  as  a 
substitute  for  that  which  is  required  at  this  present 
time ;  and  when  the  vote  is  taken  the  deputies  from  the 
Diocese  of  Pennsylvania  ask  for  a  vole  by  dioceses  and 
orders. 

Rev.  Dr.  Lab.iGII  : — I  arose  with  the  intention  of 
uttering  the  same  sentiments  as  the  gentleman  who  pre- 
ceded me,  that  the  resolution  now  before  us  is  really  a 


proposition  to  do  nothing  in  the  case.  It  is  a  virtual 
postponement  of  the  whole  question,  a  question  the 
most  important  that  this  Convention  has  passed  upon, 
and  which  the  whole  Church  is  looking  for  us  to  settle 
in  some  way,  to  give  peace  in  all  their  borders.  One  of 
the  resolutions  says,  "in  all  matters  that  are  doubtful." 
Now  I  ask,  "  Doubtful  in  whose  mind?"  Suppose  a 
person  is  about  to  establish  a  new  ritualistic  church. 
He  says,  "I  have  no  doubts  in  my  mind,  and  why  should 
I  split  matteri  with  the  Bishop ;  as  long  as  I  have  no 
doubt  in  my  mind,  that  resolution  does  not  bind  me. 
It  may  be  doubtful  in  the  minds  of  others ;  but  those 
doubts  are  not  to  govern  me."  It  doesn't  provide  any 
remedy  at  all.  What  is  doubtful  to  one  is  not  doubtful 
to  another.  How  does  the  resolution  touch  the  case  ? 
There  is  a  certain  way  to  find  out  how  not  to  do  a 
.thing.  That  is  the  way  with  this  resolution.  Now  as 
regards  the  Bi!^hops  agreeing  upon  a  thing.  We  have 
once  had  an  example  of  that  kind,  of  Bishops  direciing 
what  should  be  done  in  parishes.  There  was  once  a 
Bishop  of  North  Carolina  that  had  a  societ}'  in  his  dio- 
cese, called  The  Society  of  the  Holy  Cross,  all  under 
the  patronage  of  the  Bishop,  all  regulated  and  author- 
ized by  the  proper  authorities  of  the  diocese ;  and  in 
that  society  there  were  such  practices  as  reverences  to 
the  Virgin,  and  even,  it  is  said,  a  kind  of  devotion  to 
the  Virgin  ;  and  these  things  were  tolerated  by  diocesan 
authority.  They  were  sanctioned  by  the  authority  of 
the  Bishop  of  that  diocese.  You  know  what  the  re- 
sult is  where  our  Bishops  are  pliable.  What  is  the  ' 
condition  of  things  in  this  diocese?  Wha^  is  the  state 
of  things  all  over  the  Church  ?  The  complaint  of  the 
Church  is  that  this  Bishop  countenances  it,  and  that  he 
will  not  bring  the  authority  of  his  office  to  put  a  stop  to 
it.  That  is  the  complaint  all  over  the  Church.  How 
is  this  difficulty  to  be  remedied  by  these  resolutions? 
You  have  the  expression  "in  matters  doubtful."  The 
individual  about  to  introduce  these  rituals  has  no  doubt 
at  all ;  and  he  has  nobody  to  apply  to.  I  say  there  is 
an  indefiniteness  about  these  resolutions  which  does  not 
touch  the  question  that  is  properly  before  this  House, 
and  this  House  ought  to  be  open  and  manly,  in  order 
that  we  may  give  an  account  of  ourselves  to  our  Church 
when  we  go  home.  I  expect  soon  to  go  beyond  the 
Mississippi.  I  shall  have  the  question  asked,  "  What 
did  the  Church  say  about  ritualism? — did  she  express 
any  disapprobation  of  those  practices  which  are  disturb- 
ing us  so  much,  and  keeping  others  away  from  us,  who 
fear  that  we  are  not  steady  in  the  faith,  and  likely  to 
end  we  know  not  where?"  What  will  be  my  answer? 
I  shall  have  to  confess  that  they  have  evaded  the  subject. 
Rev.  Dr.  Mead  ; — 1  am  surprised  to  hear  my  vener- 
able brother  behind  me  [Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin]  as  well  as  ' 
the  one  who  has  just  sat  down  faulting  that  resolution 
for  the  word  "doubtful,"  as  leaving  it  to  each  individual 
clergyman  to  decide  on  which  question  he  should  ask 
the  Bishop's  approval. 


197 


Rev.  Dr.  Howe  :— I  did  not  fault  it  for  that.     [This 
remarlc  was  obviously  not  heard  by  Rev.  Dr.  Mead.] 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead  (continuing)  : — Permit  me  to  read 
the  last  resolution  of  the  minority.  [Reads  the  resolu- 
tion.] Pray  tell  me  wh.it  is  the  ditrerence.  It  amounts 
to  the  same  thing  precisely,  and  yet  it  is  faulted  on  that 
very  ground.  I  am  free  to  say  that  I  am  prepared  for 
one  to  take  the  resolutions  offered  by  the  gentleman 
from  New  York  [Rev.  Dr.  Litllejohn.]  I  was  opposed 
to  any  action  on  the  subject;  for  riluat  or  rile  is  an  in- 
definite term.  We  have  it  ecclesiastically,  we  have  it 
socially.  In  rite  the  Quaker  was  a  ritualist,  his  rite 
consisting  especially  in  wearing  a  broad  brimmed  hat 
and  the  straight  coat.  And  the  Quakeress  was  a  ritual- 
ist. She  wore  that  which  did  cover  the  head,  and 
might  be  called  a  bonnet;  she  did  not  put  the  contents 
of  a  whole  dry  goods  store  on  her  back,  but  wore  what 
was  molest  and  decent.  But  what  occasioned  the  fall- 
ing o8"  of  that  rite  of  Quakery  ?  First,  it  was  brought 
into  existence  by  opposition ;  it  was  persecuted  into 
notoiiety  and  into  a  substantial  existence  by  opposition. 
The  moment  it  achieved  its  end  and  became  a  power 
ecclesiastiL-  in  its  own  way,  that  moment  it  began  to 
subside;  and  now  i  have  seen  in  the  streets  of  New 
York  a  hirge  number  of  Quakers  from  time  to  time,  but 
a  Quaker  with  a  broad  biimmed  hat,  the  ritunl  Quaker, 
is  vara  avis  in  lerri.<,  [a  rare  bird  in  the  world].  Why 
is  this?  They  have  been  left  to  themselves  and  they 
have  died  out.  Now  I  will  speak  of  another  ritual,  a 
'  rite  or  use.  Within  twenty  three  years  a  Bishop  of 
this  Church,  now  living,  e.xpressed  to  me  his  difficulty 
conscieniiously  in  relation  to  ordination  of  a  young  man 
of  the  General  Seminar)'  because  he  had  not  put  a 
razor  on  his  face  ;  he  had  what  would  be  called  a  mous 
tache  and  goatee ;  and  yet  for  that  crime  he  was  not 
prepared  to  ordain  him.  A  gentleman  then  wearing 
that  appendnge  of  nature  as  honorably  as  you  wear  it, 
[the  President's  beard  being  of  patriarchal  style  and 
dimensions]  would  not  have  been  allowed  to  take  a  seat 
in  this  Convention.  We  wanted  smooth  faces  then. 
We  have  changed  our  ritual,  and  in  twenty  years  longer 
beard.s  will  be  among  the  things  that  were.  Under 
these  circumstances,  let  us  not  m,ike  so  much  of  a  little 
thing  changing  every  day.  You  may  go  into  the  ad- 
joining avenue  [Filth  avenue],  and  there  you  will  see 
the  rites  of  fashion.  You  will  look  at  them,  and  smile 
at  them  ;  by-and  by  they  pass  away  ;  contempt  or  neg- 
lect will  soon  drive  them  away.  I  have  looked  on  the 
whole  of  this  proceeding;  I  have  sat  here  and  heard 
grave  gentlemen,  Christian  ministers,  laymen  of  emin- 
ence, talking  about  what?  False  doctrine?  What 
have  we  to  do  with  false  doctrine  ?  Show  me  the  man  | 
who  teaches  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  or  openly  | 
declares  it,  and  I  will  bring  him  where  he  will  be  com- 
pelled to  renounce  his  false  doctrine  or  be  compelled  to 
be  degraded  in  this  Church.  Hero  are  we,  an  exceed- 
ingly grave  body,  many  of  us  grey-headed  men,  talking 


on  these  idle  subjects.  Why,  sir,  I  have  felt  again  and 
again  one  line  of  Dr.  Y'oung's  continually  running 
through  my  head.     What  do«5  this  all  mean  ?     It — 

"  Resembles  ocean  into  tempest  tossed, 

To  waft  a  feather  or  to  drown  a  fly."     [Laughter.] 

The  vote  was  then  taken  upon  the  resolutions  offered 
by  Dr.  Littlejohn,  and  they  were  adopted  by  the  follow- 
ing vote : 

Clerical  representatives,  35:  21  ayes,  10  noes,  4  di- 
vided : 

Lay  representatives  30  :  18  ayes,  8,  noes,  4  divided. 

Judge  Otis  : — I  make  the  formal  motion  that  the  res- 
olutions be  passed  by  this  House.     Carried. 

On  motion  of  Rev.  Dr.  Mead,  the  Secretary  was  in- 
structed to  forward  a  copy  of  The  CnuucnMAN's  Phono- 
graphic report  to  the  Standing  Committee  of  each  dio- 
cese in  the  United  States. 

On  motion  of  Rev.  Dr.  Howe,  a  canon,  presented  at 
the  last  General  Convention,  with  reference  to  the 
naming  of  the  dioceses,  was  referred  to  the  Committee 
on  Canons. 

The  Pi;EsiDENT — announced  that  he  had  received  a 
letter  from  Rev.  Mr.  Langdon,  resigning  his  place  on 
the  Italian  Reform  Commission,  and  that  he  had  ap- 
pointed Rev.  Dr.  Haight  in  his  stead ;  and  in  place  of 
Rev.  Dr.  Mahan  and  Rev.  Dr.  iMontgoniery,  withdrawn, 
he  appointed  Rev.  Dr.  Leeds  and  Rev.  Dr.  Huntington. 
As  the  lay  members  of  that  commission  he  a])pointed 
Mr.  Morgan,  and  Mr.  Chauncey — On  the  joint  com- 
mittee on  the  course  of  Theological  study,  he  appointed 
Rev.  Dr.  Haight,  Rev.  Dr.  Hare,  Mr.  Meads,  ami  Mr. 
Origin  S.  Seymour.  On  the  joint  committee  on  llym- 
nody,  he  appointed  Rev.  Dr.  Huntington,  Rev.  Dr. 
Howe,  and  Mr.  Henry  E.  Pierrepont. 

The  House  of  Bishops  having  sent  back  the  report 
on  the  Theological  Seminary,  because  it  was  incomplete. 
Rev.  Dr.  Shelton  explained  that  the  incompleteness  was 
due  to  the  fact  that  the  gentlemen  who  represented  the 
different  dioceses  had  not  sent  him  the  names  of  the 
trustees  belonging  to  the  Seminary  ;  and  upon  his  mo- 
tion the  list  of  trustees  was  returned  to  the  House  of 
Bishops  with  the  information  that  from  the  imperfect 
data  in  their  hands  in  conserjuence  of  the  failure  of  the 
dioceses  to  nominate  or  to  report  their  nominations  of 
tru.stees,  it  was  impossible  for  the  House  committee  to 
submit  a  more  correct  list. 

Rev.  Dr.  Howe: — I  understand  that  we  have  receiv- 
ed a  mes,sage  from  the  House  of  Bishops  signifying  that 
they  do  not  concur  in  the  canon  respecting  assistant 
bishops.  I  move  that  this  House  ask  for  a  colnmittee  of 
conference. 

Rev.  Dr.  Adams  : — That  question  is  debatab'e,  I  sup- 
pose. I  beg  leave  to  br'ng  l.efore  this  House  vtry 
strong  reasons  why  they  should  not  go  forward  and  ask 
for  a  committee  of  conference  upon  this  iniquitous  can- 
on which  we  passed  by  mistake.  \ 


198 


The  President  [smiling]  ; — you  must  apologize  for 
that  expression. 

Rev.  Dr.  Adams  : — I  apologize  for  that  expression. 
[Laughter].  Now,  sir,  in  reference  to  this  matter  tlie 
House  of  Bishops  has  refused  the  canon  which  was 
passed  here  by  a  small  majority.  I  would  suggest  the 
effect  of  that  canon  to  this  House.  I  do  not  want  to 
delay  a  vote  by  any  debate  or  any  long  speech.  This 
Church  considers  it  righteous  and  just  tliat  in  case  of  a 
bishop  becoming  incapable  of  discharging  his  episcopal 
duties,  he  has  a  riglit  to  have  an  assistant.  That  is  fair 
and  just.  This  canon  simply  brings  in  this  considera- 
tion. 

Rev.  L)r.  Howe  : — Is  it  in  order  to  discuss  the  merits 
of  a  canon  which  we  ourselves  have  adopted  ?  It  is  a 
simple  question  of  a  committee  of  conference  on  a  canon 
which  has  been  adopted  by  this  House. 

The  Pkesiuent  :— I  know  of  but  two  motions  that 
are  not  debatable ;  those  are,  the  motion  to  lay  on  the 
table,  and  the  motion  to  adjourn.  Therefore  I  suppose 
this  question  like  every  other,  must  be  debatable. 

Rev.  Dr.  Howe  : — The  gentleman  is  not  debating  the 
question  whether  we  shall  ask  for  a  Committee  of  Con- 
ference, but  he  is  debating  the  canon  wliich  we  have 
had  already  debated. 

Rev.  Dr.  Adams  : — I  conceive  I  have  a  right  to  put 
before  this  House  why  we  should  not  ask  for  a  Coumiil- 
tee  of  Conference.  I  think  it  is  fair  and  just,  and  do 
not  think  it  fair  that  my  time  should  be  used  up  m  this 
way.  I  call  upon  the  Secretary  to  tell  how  many  njin- 
utes  this  has  lost  me.  [Laughter].  I  say  that  this  canon 
simply  adds  a  new  provision,  that  is  to  say,  a  provision 
that  the  bishop  shall  have  a  right  to  have  an  assistant, 
not  when  he  is  incapable,  but,  when  he  fears  he  is  likely 
to  become  incapable.  [Laughter].  It  was  said  by  a 
gentleman  that  it  was  for  the  sake  of  saving  precious 
lives.  I  have  no  doubt  of  it  at  all.  Under  this  canon  as  we 
have  passed  it,  there  is  not  a  bishop  that  would  not  have 
an  assistant  bishop  in  twenty  years.  It  was  like  the  old 
reason  for  drinking,  six  reasons,  the  last  of  which  was 
"being  dry,  or  any  other  reason."  Now,  I  have  some 
little  more  to  say  about  this  canon.  Upon  examining 
this  canon  you  will  see  that  it  is  a  canon  which  has  a 
double-edge  ;  on  the  one  hand  it  gives  a  factious  Con- 
vention who  dislike  their  bishop  the  right  to  go  forward 
and  torment  him  to  death,  exerting  all  kinds  of  pressure 
that  they  may  be  able  to  compel  him  to  get  an  assistant 
bishop.  In  the  second  place,  it  gives  any  bishop,  what- 
soever, who  manages,  as  bishops  have  done  to  my 
knowledge,  and  will  do,  the  riglit  to  nominate  his  suc- 
cessor, to  iiSpair  the  rights  of  the  clergy — a  right  to  go 
into  the  diocesan  convention  and  force,  by  personal  in- 
fluence, his  successor  upon  the  diocese.  Now,  it  was  as- 
serted that  it  was  utterly  impossible  that  bishops  should 
do  that.  A  great  deal  of  odium  was  cast  upon  that 
idea.  I  say  that  in  one  case  a  bishop  of  a  western  dio- 
cese (who  has  gone  to  his  rest,  and  I  hope  is  in  Paradise) 


by  his  personal  influence  elected  a  man  who  had  been 
before  this  Convention  and  was  rejected  by  the  House  of 
Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  and  by  the  House  of  Bishops. 
I  therefore  object  to  a  Committee  of  Conference  being 
called,  because  it  simply  brings  us  again  to  the  considers 
tioo  of  a  canon  which  has  a  double-edge,  fitted  to  torment 
the  bishops  and  fitted  to  deprive  the  clergy  and  laity  of 
their  rights,  and  which  has  been  rejected  by  the  House 
of  Bishops.  I  hope,  therefore,  with  regard  to  this  canon 
which  we  passed  by  a  small  majority,  that  this  House 
win  go  in  and  by  a  large  majority  declare  that  they  will 
not  go  it  blind  on  any  man's  advice  whatsoever,  but  will 
vote  according  to  their  consciences. 

Rev.  Mr.  Rorers,  of  Texas: — I  hope  the  House  will 
remember  that  when  this  canon  was  passed  originally  it 
was  upon  a  great  pressure.  The  next  day  the  motion 
was  made  to  reconsider,  but,  going  over  until  the  next 
morning,  the  action  was  had  upon  reconsideration  and 
those  who  aslced  that  the  canon  should  be  reconsidered 
were  placed  in  the  peculiar  condition  that  they  were  to 
bring  about  the  reconsideration  by  a  majority  of  orders. 
Now,  when  we  came  to  vote  there  were  against  the  can- 
on (in  favor  of  this  reconsideration),  24  dioceses,  6  for 
it,  and  4  divided.  There  were  lay  delegations,  I  think,  17 
voting  against  the  canon,  14  for,  and  4  divided.  Now, 
gentlemen,  on  mature  consideration  a  large  majority  of 
this  House  put  their  foot  upon  this  canon.  The  bishops 
have  put  their  feet  upon  this  canon  ;  and  now  it  strikes 
me  that  it  is  with  remarkable  ill-grace  that  any  man 
comes  into  this  House  and  asks  24  clerical  delegations  to 
reconsider  our  reconsideration,  and  the  lay  delegations 
also  to  reconsider.  We  have  already  decided  this  mat- 
ter. In  reality  we  had  our  foot  upon  it.  Let  us  keep 
our  foot  upon  it  and  refuse  to  grant  this  conference 
which  is  asked  for  and  let  us  go  home  as  we  should  h.ave 
done  long  ago  without  this  canon  passing,  without  this 
tormenting  curse  upon  us. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight  :  It  may  be  with  exceeding  ill  grace 
that  this  is  done.  I  hope  I  shall  not  have  the  ill  grace 
to  use  such  language  as  my  brother  has  used  wiih  re- 
gard to  the  action  of  this  House.  It  is  perfectly  within 
the  jirovince  of  this  House  to  reconsider  any  question  ; 
and  it  is  perfectly  consistent  with  gentlemanly  proprie- 
ty for  a  member  of  this  House,  when  the  Bishops  have 
returned  to  us  a  canon,  declining  to  pass  the  canon 
which  we  enacted,  to  ask  for  a  Committee  of  Confer- 
ence. It  may  be  that  further  reflection  has  led  some 
gentlemen  of  this  House  to  think  that  they  have  not 
rightly  understood  the  question.  I  am  perfectly  wil- 
ling to  take  the  odium  of  seconding  the  motion  that 
tills  House  ask  for  a  Committee  of  Conference  upon 
this  subject.  I  do  believe  after  all  that  has  been  said, 
and  all  the  vituperation  heaped  upon  this  canon,  that 
it  is  a  canon  which  will  be  of  eminent  service  to  the 
Church  in  more  waj  s  than  one. 

Mr.  McCrady  : — So  late  in  the  day  do  the  friends 
of  this  canon  propose   a   Committee  of  Conference ! 


199 


They  have  had  a  fair  chance.  Thoy  passed  and  sent  it 
to  the  House  of  Bishops,  and  the  House  of  Bi^hops  did 
not  concur.  You  only  distract  the  Houfe.  A  great 
many  of  our  measures  have  been  sent  to  the  House  of 
Bishops  todiiy,  which  ihey  may  refuse  to  concur  in. 
I  do  not  see  why  we  should  at  this  present  time,  within 
ten  minutes  of  tlie  time  of  adjournment,  ask  for  a  Com- 
mittee of  Conference.  Notliinj;  can  be  done  in  that 
time.  A  small  majority  of  (his  House  recommended  it 
to  be  sent  to  the  House  of  Bishops.  It  is  the  fortune 
of  those  opposed  to  it  that  it  has  come  back ;  and  we 
have  a  right  to  avail  ourselves  of  the  opportunity  to 
refuse  to  consent  to  a  Committee  of  Conference. 

Rev.  Dr.  Howe: — This  House  has  expressed  itself 
twice  in  a  constitutional  way  i^  favor  of  adopting  such  a 
canon.  Gentlemen  come  with  th  ir  ex  parte  statements 
with  regard  to  it.  The  solemn  fact  is  they  have  twice 
affirmed  that  this  canon  is  their  will ;  and  now  our 
Right  Reverend  Fathers,  as  I  understand,  by  a  very 
small  majority — [the  President: — I  don't  think  it  is 
right  to  make  that  statement]. — I  withdraw  that  state- 
ment— have  declined  to  accede  to  that  which  we  pro- 
pose as  a  canon,  for  reasons  that  none  of  us  have  heard 
in  tliis  House.  Perhaps  it  will  be  the  judgment  of  a  Com- 
mittee of  Conlerence  that  no  such  canon  ought  to  have 
been  adopted,  and  that  they  will  propose  to  this  House 
an  acceptance  of  the  refusal  of  the  House  of  Bishops  to 
concur.  It  seems  to  me  that  it  is  a  matter  of  entire  pro- 
priety that  we  should  confer  with  them.  As  to  the  late- 
ness— it  has  often  been  done  on  the  evening  of  the  last 
day's  session.  I  do  not  know  what  we  shall  do  to-mor- 
row to  keep  ourselves  occupied  until  the  evening. 

Rev.  Dr.  Hodges: — I  must  with  all  humility  take 
exception  to  the  mode  in  which  ray  reverend  brother 
from  Pennsylvania  has  expressed  the  a'-tian  of  this 
House.  Twice,  he  says,  this  House  has  confirmed  its  will 
that  this  canon  shall  be  passed.  I  will  recall  the  atten- 
tion of  the  House  to  the  fact  that  the  original  canon  was 
passed  by  accident,  and  the  ditference  in  the  count  was 
only  five  in  one  hundred  and  seventy,  and  every  one 
who  tries  to  count  persons  standing  in  that  way,  knows 
there  may  be  some  mistake.  It  was  pas.«ed  by  a  small 
majority.  An<l  when  the  matter  was  reconsidered,  it  was 
evidently  not  the  judgment  of  this  House  in  an  author- 
itative way.  When  this  matter  came  up  for  reconsidera- 
tion, the  judgment  of  the  House  was  numerically  e.--:- 
pressed  as  against  the  canon,  because  the  whole  numeri- 
cal majnrity  was  in  favor  of  the  reconsideration.  Had 
it  not  been  for  the  technical  way  in  which  that  question 
was  taken — had  it  not  been  the  question  of  the  pas- 
sage or  not  of  the  canon,  it  would  have  been  decided 
against  it;  but  from  the  particular  way  in  which  it  came 
up,  it  could  not  be  reconsidered.  We  have  been  told 
that  the  House  of  Bishops  have  not  given  us  any  reason. 
I  think  if  the  House  had  listened  to  the  message,  it 
would  have  heard  the  reasons ;  and  it  strikes  me  that 
they  are  particularly  sound  and  ought  to  be  satisfactory 


— "  that  this  House  does  not  concur  in  the  canon  so  and 

so,  for  the  reasons  that  it  greatly  aflTccts  the  relation  of 
the  Bishop  to  his  diocese  0'"^  Bishops  are  the  persons 
interested),  and  tends  to  disturb  existing  relations  as 
well  between  members  of  the  House  of  Bishops  among 
themselves  as  between  the  present  diocesan  Bishops 
and  the  people  under  their  charge."  If  these  are  not 
reasons  I  have  never  heard  any. 

Rev.  Dr.  Howe  : — I  do  not  understand  them,  and 
should  like  to  have  other  opportunity  to  hear  them 
explained. 

Mr. : — In  behalf  of  Vermont,   I   call   for 

this  question  to  be  decided  by  dioceses  and  orders. 

On  motion  of  Rev.  Dr.  Hare,  the  matter  was  laid 
upon  the  table. 

Rev.  Mr.  Wyatt  offered  the  following  resolution  : 

Jie.iolved,  That  it  be   referred   to  the   Committee  on 

Canons,  to  examine  canon  number ,  on  the  subject 

of  marriage  after  divorce,  and  report  to  the  next  Gener- 
al Convention,  whether  in  their  judgment  the  proviso, 
'■  Except  cases  of  divorce  (or  the  cause  of  adultery," 
ought  to  be  stricken  out  to  render  the  canon  more  strict- 
ly conformable  to  teaching  of  H0I3'  Scripture. 

The  resolution  was  lost. 

The  House  then  adjourned  until  to-morrow. 

TWENTIETH    DAY'S    PROCEEDINGS. 

Thursday,  Oct.  29tb,  1868. 

Morning  Prayer  was  said  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Bailey 
and  Rev.  Dr.  McMasters. 

The  Benediction  was  pronounced  by  Bishop  Ran- 
dall. 

The  journal  of  yesterday's  proceedings  was  read  and 
approved. 

Rev.  Dr.  HAiGHr: — The  papers  this  morning  have 
brought  us  the  sad  intelligence  of  the  death  of  his  Grace 
the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury.  When  we  remember 
our  close  connection  with  the  Church  of  England  of 
late,  and  how  it  has  been  due  to  the  character,  the 
nreat  courtesy,  urbanity,  prudence,  and  gentleness  of 
that  prelate,  and  when  we  call  to  mind  his  high  charac- 
ter and  distinguished  position,  I  think  it  will  not  be  in 
the  mind  of  this  House  to  allow  this  melancholy  event 
to  pass  by  without  some  manifestation  of  its  feelings.  I 
therefore  move : 

That  this  House  has  heard  with  profound  regret  of 
the  death  of  his  Grace  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
and  that  this-  House  do  communicate  to  the  House  of 
Bishops  its  desire  to  join  with  them  in  such  expressions 
of  regard  and  of  respect  lor  his  memory  as  they  may 
sje  fit  to  prepare. 

Resoked,  That  the  action  of  the  General  Conven- 
tion in  regard  to  the  death  of  the  Archbishop  of  Cati- 
bury  be  transmitted  at  once  by  telegraph  to  the  Hifhop 
of  London,  the  Dean  of  the  Province  oi'  Canterbury. 

This  resolution  was  adopted  by  a  unanimous  vote. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Welsh  tlie  action  of  the  General 
Convention  was  communicated  by  telegraph  to  Eng- 
land. 

Rev.  Dr.  HaiGht   moved    that  this  House  concur  in 


200 


the  resolutions  contained  in  message  No.  63  from  the 
House  of  Bishops,  concerning  the  consecration  of 
churches. 

A  Deputv: — I  have  no  ohjection  to  that  part  which 
has  been  read.  It  may  be  remembered  by  some,  that  in 
the  Convention  a  few  days  ago,  I  referred  to  a  case  in 
which  a  certain  church  corporation  found  it  necessary 
to  purchase  four  different  lots  from  different  owners, 
and  that  it  was  impossible  to  secure  one  of  those  lots 
unless  a  mortgage  was  given  to  the  owner  upon  that  lot. 
I  ask  the  question  whether,  under  such  circumstances, 
that  church  could  be  consecrated,  the  mortgage  not  be- 
ing one  fourth  part  of  the  lot.  1  do  not  see  what  pro- 
vision, if  any,  is  made  for  such  a  case. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haigut  : — That  whole  matter  is  left  to  the 
diocese. 

A  Deptjty: — Can  there  not  be  a  lien  or  incumbrance? 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight  : — It  will  be  difficult  to  say  whether 
it  is  such  a  lien  as  would  prevent  the  consecration.  The 
manifest  intention  of  the  canon  is  to  prevent  a  church 
from  being  consecrated  that  might,  under  any  circum- 
stances, be  sold  for  debt. 

1  here  were  here  reijeived  from  the  House  of  Bisophs 
messages  69  to  76. 

Rev.  Dr.  Hare  asked  for  the  reading  of  the  canon 
about  consecration  of  churches.     It  was  then  read. 

Rev.  Dr.  Hake  : — Under  the  present  circumstances, 
with  such  information  as  I  have,  I  shall  be  obliged  to 
vote  against  the  proposed  canon,  because  I  fear  in  Penn- 
sylvania it  will  void  bequests  and  other  gifts  to  the  ves- 
tries. I  referred  the  other  day  to  a  law  well-known  as 
the  Price  Law.  Although  I  do  not  profess  to  speak  with 
certainty,  my  impression  is  a  strong  one,  that  that  law 
voids  all  bequests  and  gifts  which  are  made  to  any  ves- 
try or  body  of  trustees  when  that  vestry  or  body  of 
trustees  is  controlled  by  anjr  ecclesiastical  persons.  I 
may  be  mistaken,  but  my  impression  is  a  strong  one, 
that  the  effect  of  the  passage  of  this  canon  will  be  to 
make  legally  void  in  Pennsylvania,  gifts   to   churches. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight  : — I  thought  the  effect  of  the  ob- 
jection from  Pennsj  Ivania  had  reference  to  the  title. 
This  section  enacts  that  it  shall  not  be  lawful  to  encum- 
ber or  alienate  the  property  without  the  consent  of  the 
bishop  acting  by  and  with  the  advice  of  the  Standing 
Committee. 

Rev.  Dr.  Hare  : — In  other  words,  there  is  an  over- 
ruling inference  over  the  vestry,  so  that  they  cannot 
alienate  the  property  without  consulting  another  body. 
This  law,  intended  to  prevent  the  accumulation  of  pro- 
perty in^he  hands  of  Roman  Catholic  Bishops,  has  the 
effect,  unless  I  mistake,  of  miking  void  all  gifts  to  ves- 
tries, provided  they  are  under  the  controlling  influence 
of  ecclesiastical  persons. 

Dr.  Haight  :  —I  do  not  see  how  it  touches  this  par- 
ticular point. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead:— It  affects  it  directly. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight  : — You    might   add  that  this  shall 


not  apply  in  states  where  it  would  conflict  with  the 
state  law.  I  move  that  it  be  referred  back  to  the  com- 
mittee. 

Rev.  Mr.  Hensiiaw,  of  Rhode  Island : — I  have  an 
amendment  to  offer.  The  amendment  I  propose  is  that 
the  following  should  be  added  to  the  canon  : 

"It  shall  not  be  lawful  to  sell  or  lease  any  pew  or 
seat  in  any  church  or  (chapel  now  consecrated  or  which 
may  hereafter  be  consecrated,  by  auction  held  within 
the  walls  of  said  church  or  chapel." 

This  amendment  was  referred  together  with  the  pro- 
posed canon  to  the  Committee  on  Canons. 

The  President  appointed  the  committee  on  the 
part  of  the  House  with  reference  to  the  archives  of  the 
Church:  Dr.  Coit,  Mr.  Winthiop  and  Mr.  Hamilton 
Fish. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haight  moved  that  the  House  concur  in 
message  No.  74  from  the  House  of  Bishops,  continuing 
the  Joint  Committee  on  friendly  intercourse  with  Swe- 
den. 

On  motion  of  Rev.  Dr.  Mead   there   was  referred  to 
the  Committee  on  E.\penses,  a  resolution   appropriating 
two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  for  clerkhire,  and  expens- 
es of  the  House  of  Bishops. 

Mr.  Fish  : — I  would  ask  leave  of  this  Convention  at 
this  moment,  when  the  chair  is  temporarily  filled,  to 
offer  a  resolution  on  which  I  wish  to  say  nothing,  but 
which  I  am  sure  will  address  itself  to  the  cordial  sympa- 
thies of  this  House. 

llesolced,  That  this  House  tender  their  sincere  thanks 
to  the  Reverend  President  for  the  courteous  discharge 
of  the  delicate  and  arduous  duties  of  his  responsible  po- 
sition, and  that  the  hearty  thanks  of  the  House  are  giv- 
en to  the  Secretary,  and  the  Assistant  Secretary,  and 
the  Treasurer,  for  the  very  satisfactory  manner  in  which 
they  have  performed  their  duties. 

These  resolutions  were  unanimously  adopted. 
Rev.  Mr.  Breck  offered  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved  That  the  thanks  of  this  House  be  presented 
to  the  churchmen  of  this  city,  and  its  vicinity,  for  their 
generous  hospitalitj'  during  the  past  three  weeks,  and 
that  we  shall  gratefully  cherish  the  remembrance  of  the 
many  kind  attentions  tendered  to  us  by  their  fiimilies. 

Resolved^  That  the  thanks  of  this  House  be  presented 
to  the  Bishop  of  New  York,  and  the  clergy  and  laity, 
who  have  opened  their  houses  for  the  social  gathering 
of  the  membi  rs  of  the  Convention,  thus  affording  op- 
portunities (or  delightful  interchange  of  greetings  truJy 
refreshing  after  the  close  of  the  more  formal  engage- 
ments of  the  day. 

These  resolutions  were  unanimously  adopted. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead  offered  the  following  resolution,  which 
was  adopted : 

Resolved,  That  this  Convention,  in  justice  to  its  own 
feelings,  acknowledges  its  obligations  to  the  Rev.  Fred- 
erick Ogilby,  D.  D.,  and  his  associates  in  the  Committee 
of  Hospitalitv  rai.sed  by  the  Churchmen  of  this  city  for 
their  kind  labors  in  providing  for  the  hospitable  recep- 
tion of  the  clergy  and  laity  of  this  House. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead  also  offered  the  following  resolution, 

which  was  adopted: 


201 


Tlfunlverl,  Tliat  the  recfors,  churchwardens  and  res- 
trymcn  of  Trinity  CImr'.'h,  an'i  the  Church  of  the 
Transfiinralion,  iinil  of  Calvary  Church  of  this  city,  ar« 
eniith'i)  to  the  w.irmest  thanl<s  of  this  House  for  their 
]ib?ral  provision  a'wl  kind  attention  to  the  wants  and 
convenience  of  tliis  Convention. 

Mr.  Wf:l?ii: — I  second  that  with  the  utmost  cordi- 
ality. IMy  connection  has  been  mainly  with  the  rector 
of  the  parish.  1  must  say  he  is  entitled  to  the  most 
corilial  thanks  for  the  attentions  he  has  shown  this  Con- 
vention. He  has  piven  his  best  efforts  early  and  late. 
He  has  made  the  work  of  the  committee  very  light  and 
very  pleasant. 

Rev.  r>r.  MEAd  offered  the  following  resolution,  which 
was  alopted  : 

EesrilceiJ,  That  when  this  House  adjourns,  it  adjourn 
to  nK'ct  the  House  of  Bisliops  at  Calvary  Church,  at 
seven  and  a  half  oVlork  this  evenin;;,  to  hear  the  Pastor- 
al Letter,  and  to  join  in  the  closing  religious  services, 
anil  that  immediately  after  the  Benediction  is  pronounc- 
ed, this  House  do  stand  adjourned  sine  die. 

Resolutions  were  adopted  e.xpressing  the  thanks  of  the 
House  to  the  Hon.  James  Kelly,  postmaster  of  this  city, 
and  to  George  Woodward  for  his  courteous  attention  as 
post-office  clerk  during  the  session. 

Rev.  Dr.  Hubbaud,  from  the  Committee  on  the 
Prayer-book,  repoited  a  resolution  (adopted)  with  refer- 
ence to  certain  memorials  presented  with  regard  to  the 
new  version  of  the  Nicene  Creed — that  it  was  deemed 
inex[iedient. 

On  motion  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Abercrombie  it  was  ordered 
that  ten  copies  of  the  journal  be  placed  in  the  hands  of 
the  Kusso-Greek  Committee  for  exchange  for  documents, 
etc. 

Message  No.  77  from  the  House  of  Bishops  communi- 
cated the  following  message  to  be  transmitted  to  the 
Lord  Bisliop  of  London: 

To  Ihe  Lord  BUhop  of  London: 

The  two  Houses  of  (General  Convention  transmit  their 
affeciionate  condolence  to  the  Church  of  England  on  the 
death  01  its  verjerable  Prinia'e. 

(Signed)  B.  B.  Smith,  Presiding  Bishop. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Welsh  the  name  of  the  President 
was  added  to  the  communication,  and  the  Secretary  was 
ordered  to  transmit  the  message. 

Mr.  Welsh. — 1  would  like  to  ask,  for  information, 
what  is  new  matter  and  what  is  not  [with  reference  to 
a  resolution  by  the  House  that  after  the  time  of  its  adop- 
tion no  new  miitter  should  be  introduced  into  the  House]. 
The  House  of  Bishops  has  sent  a  request  here  for  two 
or  three  things,  which  Ihe  Committee  on  Canons  have 
said  they  are  indisposed  to  concur  in.  1  take  it  for 
granted  that  it  would  not  be  new  matter,  because  it  has 
been  before  us  before. 

The  President. — Nothing  coming  from  the  House  of 
Bishops  can  be  regarded  as  new  matter;  we  are  bound 
to  act  npon  whatever  they  send  to  us. 

Mr.  Welsh. — They  have  sent  an  earnest  petition  to 
this  House,  one  that  has  given  them  deep  grief,  and  our 
26 


reply  has  wounded  them  deeply,  and  they  feel  that  it 
has  marred  not  only  their  happiness  but  their  usefulness. 
I  have  perceived  that  the  difficulty  is  likely  to  go  on  and 
be  aggravated  with  Ihe  increase  of  numbers.  Some 
years  since,  when  1  suppose  there  was  some  little  feeling 
between  the  two  Houses,  we  came  to  the  conclusion  that 
the  House  of  Bishops  should  be  put  in  a  position  that 
no  other  House  has  been  put  in.  We  got  Ihe  House  to 
agree  that  every  measure  that  we  sent  up  to  the  House 
of  Bishops  should  be  returned  with  reasons  if  they  did 
not  concur,  or  become  a  law.  They  soon  found  it  troub- 
lesome. The  House  of  Bishops  is  increasing,  and  they 
say  that  it  compels  them  to  hasty  action.  For  instance, 
we  will  be  engaged  for  days  on  some  matter  of  business, 
and  little  or  nothing  will  be  sent  to  Ihe  bishops.  Then 
we  will  get  to  business  and  send  up  there  a  whole  batch 
of  canons;  and  they  will  come  in  just  as  they  get  into 
some  important  discussion.  In  the  midst  of  that  discus- 
sion the  Secretary  says,  "here  is  a  batch  of  things  that 
have  to  be  acted  upon,  or  they  become  law."  They  im- 
mediately legislate  in  great  haste.  This  difficulty  is 
likely  to  be  aggravated  with  the  number  of  new  bishops 
that  are  likely  to  come  into  the  next  House  of  Bishops. 
The  whole  House  of  Bishops  feel  this  difficulty  to  be  a 
grave  one.  I  think  the  whole  thing  is  wrong;  and  I 
should  like  to  see  the  number  of  diys  taken  out,  but  to 
leave  in  the  "reasons"  They  asked  us  a  t^iw  days  ago 
to  take  out  the  reasons  and  the  days  both.  We  declined 
to  concur.  They  have  not  sent  any  other  message,  for 
they  feel  wounded  There  was  no  offer  to  have  a  com- 
mittee of  conference  on  that  subject.  We  simply  sent 
word  back  that  the  request  made  by  them  was  not  con- 
curred in  by  this  House.  I  think  we  were  wrong  there; 
and  I  think  that  any  gentleman  who  would  put  this 
House  in  the  condition  of  the  House  of  Bishops — though 
it  is  not  possible  for  a  layman  to  do  so  fully  (however  I 
have  occasionally  known  clergymen  who  almost  thought 
they  were  bishops) — if  we  really  feel  grateful,  I  think  it 
is  about  time  we  might  be  a  little  Churchiy,  a  little  kind 
to  our  Fathers,  that  we  might  consider  their  dilficulty. 
I  should  prefer  infinitely  to  take  out  the  time,  leaving  it 
to  them  wholly.  I  know  we  have  some  old-fashioned 
people,  and  it  might  grieve  them  very  much.  I  would 
be  willing  to  give  the  bishofis  five  days.  But  I  would 
rather  have  a  resolution  of  this  sort  passed. 

Resolved,  That  Ihe  House  of  Bishops  concurring,  it 
be  proposed  that  Article  3  of  the  Constitution  be  amend- 
ed by  striking  out  the  words  "wiiliin  three  days  alter 
the  action  shall  have  been  reported,"  so  that  it  shall  read 
thus:  "and  in  all  cases  the  House  of  Bishops  shall  s^ig- 
nifV  their  approbation  or  disapprobation,  the  latter  with 
their  reasons  in  writing,  and  in  failure  thereof  it  shall 
have  the  operation  of  the  law." 

I  am  perfectly  willing  to  trust  the  bishops.  I  do 
know  what  Bishop  White  designed  in  founding  this 
Church.  I  happened  to  live  in  the  same  city ;  and  J  do 
know  that  he  wanted  as  striking  an  analogy  between  this 
Church  and  the  government  of  the  United  Stales  as  he 
could  have.     We  give  the  President  ten  days,  but  bo- 


202 


tween  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  there 
is  no  such  arrangement.  This  proposed  amenrlraent  is 
clearly  right ;  it  is  respectful  to  our  Falliers.  Tliis  will 
have  to  go  to  the  next  General  Convention,  and  then  it 
will  be  brought  forward  three  years  hence. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead.^I  have  a  few  word^^  to  say  on  this 
subject.  The  first  is,  that  it  is  rather  late  in  the  session 
to  originate  new  matter.  And  the  question  has  been 
once  presented  and  disposed  of. 

The  President. — The  only  way  in  which  the  thing 
could  be  introduced  would  be  to  move  a  re-consideration 
of  the  action  of  this  House. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead. — We  are  late  in  the  session.  The 
House  has  now  dwindled  to  a  comparatively  small  num- 
ber; and  I  think  it  would  be  unwise,  by  a  two-thirds 
vote,  to  change  that  rule  which  we  adopted.  But,  if  it 
is  to  be  entertained,  I  have  something  very  serious  to 
say  to  this  House  on  the  subject ;  and  it  may  bring  out 
that  which  I  referred  to  the  other  day,  that  if  certain 
questions  should  arise  in  this  House  I  might  be  compelled 
to  say  something  in  relation  to  a  matter  which  would 
arise  upon  that  proposition,  which  would  make  the  ears 
of  the  members  of  this  House  tingle.  I  hope  that  the 
House  will  not  entertain  it  as  entirely  new  matter.  I  do 
not  wish  to  say  any  thing  severe  or  unkind.  But  1 
must  do  my  duty.  It  is  probably  the  last  time  (as  a  man 
at  the  age  of  73  can  scarcely  expect  to  sit  again  in  this 
body — the  14th  time  in  succession) — it  is  the  last  time  I 
shall  probably  ever  be  a  member  of  this  body,  and  if  this 
question  does  come  up  the  House  will  hear  me.  I  shall 
be  interested  to  show  where  the  grief  lies,  not  from  the- 
ory or  hearsay,  but  from  the  records  of  this  House.  1 
beg  the  gentleman,  if  he  wishes  to  spare  me  and  to  spare 
others,  that,  if  this  proposition  is  really  in  order,  it  will 
be  voted  down. 

The  President  : — Unless  you  move  a  reconsideration 
of  the  action  of  this  House  in  nonconcurring  with  the 
House  of  Bishops,  you  cannot  reach  this  subject. 

Mr.  Welsh  : — The  resolution  passed  a  few  days  since, 

that  no  new  matter  shall  be   introduced.     I   move   that 

rule  shall  be  suspended  in   order   to  introduce  this.     It 

does  not  require  a  two-thirds  vote  ;  but  a  simple  majority. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead: — Is  that  motion  debatable? 

The  President  : — Yes,  sir. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead  : — I  wish  to  say  a  word  to  that.  In 
the  first  place,  I  ask  the  question,  does  it  not  require  a 
tw6-thirds  vote  to  change  a  rule  of  order  ? 

Rev.  Dr.  Hare  : — If  I  correctly  understand  this  mat- 
ter, it  is  precisely  the  same  thing  that  was  introduced  on 
he  last  day  of  the  session  of  1866  ;  for,  1  find,  bv  refer- 
ring to  the  journal  of  the  last  day  of  the  session  of  1865, 
that  Mr.  Chambers  from  the  Committee  on  Canons  pre- 
sented a  report  [in  effect  striking  out  the  words  "three 
day.s"  as  the  time  for  signifying  disapprobation  by  the 
House  of  Bishops,  and  substituting  the  words  "durini'  the 
session"].     On  page  141  we  read  thus :  ''A  message  was 


received  from  the  House  of  Bishops  signifying  that  it  Las 

passed  the  following  resolution  : 

Resolved,  That  the  House  of  Bishops  do  non-concur 
in  ihe  action  of  the  Hou^e  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies 
transmitted  to  this  House  in  message  No.  50,  for  the 
reason  that  it  is  too  late  in  the  session  for  the  due  con- 
sideration of  so  important  a  subject." 

If  on  the  last  day  of  the  present  session  we  propose  a 
measure  which  was  thus  met,  how  can  we  reasonably 
expect  a  different  result  ?  I  move  to  lay  it  on  the  table. 

The  motion  to  lay  upon  the  table  Mr.  Welsh's  motion 
to  suspend  the  rule  of  order,  for  the  purpose  of  taking 
up  the  proposed  amendment,  was  carried  by  a  decisivri 
mnjority. 

Mr.  Hamilton  Fisn — reported  from  the  Committee 
on  Canons,  with  refijrence  to  the  proposed  canon,  from 
the  House  of  Bishops,  concerning  consecration  of  church- 
es, that  they  recommended  the  enactment  of  the  proposed 
canon  with  the  following  additional  section: 

"Section  2,  Provided  that  this  section  shall  not  be 
operative  in  any  State  with  the  laws  of  which  relating  to 
the  title  and  holdins  of  properly  by  religious  corporations 
the  same  may  conflict."  ■ 

I  move  the  adoption  of  the  canon  as  amended  by  the 
committee. 

The  canon  was  thereupon  adopted. 

Mr.  Fisii : — I  am  also  instructed  by  the  committee  to 
submit  in  the  form  of  a  separate  canon  the  proposition 
offered  by  the  reverend  deputy  from  Rhode  laland.  I 
have  not  had  time  to  reduce  it  to  writing.  I  ask  the  House 
to  allow  that  to  be  done  afterwards.  The  committee 
recommend  the  adoption  of  a  canon  to  be 

'Canon  — .  It  shall  not  be  lawful-to  sell  or  lease  any 
pew  or  seat  in  any  church  or  chapel  now  consecrated  or 
which  may  hereafter  be  consecrated,  by  public  sale  held 
within  the  walls  of  such  church  or  chapel." 

Mr.  Welsh  : — That  looks  to  me  a  little  like  sanction- 
ing the  thing.  I  hope  we  will  pause  a  moment  before 
we  pass  it  hastily.  It  would  look  a  little  as  if  the  General 
Convention  was  giving  its  sanction  to  the  thing..  I  am 
afraid  if  that  should  become  a  canon  it  would  be  referred 
to  as  warranting  this  sale.  Aftera  thing  has  been  conse- 
crated and  put  upon  God's  altar  we  go  there  and  take 
that  back  again.  I  hope  gentlemen  will  think  a  moment. 
Rev.  Dr.  Beardsley: — I  think  that  canon  would 
operate  hardly  in  many  of  our  parishes  in  Connecticut. 
AVe  sell  our  seats  annually  in  the  majority  of  our  par- 
ishes, but  no  auctioneer  comes  in  to  many  of  the 
churches.  Take,  for  instance,  my  own  parish.  The  day 
for  renting  the  seats  is  published,  and  one  of  the  vestry 
is  selected  to  receive  the  bids  of  the  different  parishion- 
ers. Everything  is  conducled  with  perfect  decorum. 
The  parishioners  are  assembled,  the  men  with  their  hats 
off,  just  as  much  as  if  there  was  a  service.  We  do  not 
regard  ourselves  as  guilty  of  any  want  of  decorum  in  the 

'  proceedings.  I  think  the  vestries  of  the  dliTerent  parish- 
es in  Connecticut  would  resist  such  a  canon  as  this  ;  they 

j    would  think   it   was   interfering   with  their  rights  very 


w 


much.  It  is  a  custom  that  has  been  estabjished  "with  u^ 
from  time  immemorial ;  and  there  certainly  ought  to  be 
some  exceptions  made  to  it  if  adopted.  My  wish  would 
be  that  this  thing  should  be  postponed  to  the  next  Gen- 
eral Convention.  I  do  not  think  we  have  had  sufficient 
time  to  consider  it ;  and  by  the  next  Convention,  if  it  be 
spread  upon  our  minutes,  we  can  see  what  will  come  up. 
Rev.  Dr.  Mead— said  that  the  practice  of  selling  pews 
had  a  tendency  to  destroy  the  veneration  of  the  people 
for  their  places  of  worship  ;  that  for  instance  he  had 
known  that  on  the  occasion  of  such  sales,  the  pew-hold- 
ers regardless  of  the  sacredness  of  the  place  would  come 
in  with  their  hats  on.  Dissensions,  quarrels  of  women 
as  well  as  of  men,  arise  from  the  practice.  The  clergy 
need  something  like  this  canon,  and  the  practice  will  be 
changed.  He  gave  an  instance  where  the  practice  had 
already  been  changed — where  the  sale  of  pews  took 
place,  in  some  other  place  than  the  church,  with  refer- 
ence to  a  diagram  of  the  pews. 

Rev.  Mr.  Hinshaw — described  the  sale  of  pews, 
where  the  auctioneer's  flag  was  seen  flying  from  the  door 
of  the  church  about  mid  da)'  ;  the  auctioneer  was  in  the 
church  with  his  hammer  in  his  hand  ;  persons  who  have 
held  seats  in  that  church  for  years  and  have  paid  the 
rental  which  has  been  required  by  the  corporation  or 
vestry,  are  displaced  by  some  new  comers  because  the 
original  pew-holders  are  unable  to  pay  such  a  premium 
for  a  choice  as  those  who  step  into  the  church  for  the 
first  time.  There  within  the  consecrated  walls  of  the 
church,  the  auctioneer  with  the  hammer  ni  his  hand  knocks 
down  a  pew  for  a  new-comer  and  turns  out  the  family  that 
have  been  communicants  in  that  church  for  a  score  of 
years. 

Rev.  Dr.  Beardsley  : — I  think  that  that  does  not 
apply  to  our  case. 

A  Deputy — deprecated  the  introduction  of  this  meas- 
ure at  a  time  when  several  entire  delegations  had  left 
under  the  impression  that  no  new  matter  would  be  intro- 
duced. 

Kev.  Dr.  Mead  : — It  was  moved  as  an  amendment  to 
matter  which  had  already  been  before  the  House.  It 
is  not  new  matter.  Any  new  amendment  ofl'ered  is  not 
new  njaltiT. 

The  motion  to  lay  the  resolution  on  the  table  was  lo^t. 

Rev.  Mr.  W'uite,  of  Piltsburg: — I  would  like  to  offer 

a  substitute  or  an  amendment.     It  strikes    me  thit  this 

canon  does  not  go  far  enough.  I  would  offer  the  following 

amendment: 

"It  shall  not  be  lawful  for  the  authorities  of  a  church 
once  consecrated,  to  use  it  for  any  uuhalloived,  commjn, 
or  ordinary  use." 

This  is  taken  from  the  Consecration  Service.     It  will 
bind  the  authorities  of  the  church  to  carry  out  the  inten 
tion  of  the  church. 

Mr.  Ha.milton  Fish — thought  that  was  already  pro- 
vided for. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haiqht,  [in  the  Chair] : — That  is  not  in 
order. 


A  Deputy  :  I  am  much  in  favor  of  the  principle  of 
the  canon  ;  but  I  beg  to  ask  how  this  canon  could  be 
enforced. 

Rev.  Dr.  Adams  : — I  would  wish  to  state  a  little  in- 
stance in  reference  to  this  proposed  resolution  on  can- 
ons, which  will  move  the  House  toward  adopting  it. 
Some  twenty  years  ago,  I  brought  forward  in  Hugh 
Davey  Evans's  "  True  Catholic,"  this  very  instance. 
I  showed  the  auctioneer  in  the  chancel  cutting  up  his 
jokes,  with  his  papers  on  the  table,  and  desecrating  it  in 
the  very  way  we  all  know  has  taken  place.  Tlie  siui 
pie  circumstance  I  would  slate  is  this :  That  artich- 
came  into  the  hands  of  a  prominent  auctioneer  of  thi.s 
city,  who  was  certainly  an  eminent  business  man,  if  ever 
any  man  was,  and  he  said  to  Rev.  Dr.  Muhlenburg, 
'  Well,  doctor,  I  never  thought  of  that ;  1  see  it  is  wrong." 
I  would  say  to  this  Church  that  the  essential  object  uf 
the  Church  of  God  is  the  information  and  instruction  of 
the  consciences  of  its  communicants,  and  that  there  aie 
many  honest  men  and  women  who  are  doing  wrong 
with  regard  to  this  matter,  simply  through  thoughtlessne.^s. 
I  would  say,  pass  such  a  resolution  condemning  the 
practice  of  desecrating  the  House  of  God  by  the  jokes 
of  the  auctioneer,  however  innocent  in  other  places. 
Instruct  the  masses  who  are  at  present  going  on  doing 
what  is  indecorous.  It  will  be  a  protection  for  the  cler- 
gyman, who  has  but  one  single  voice,  and  would  per- 
haps do  much  to  prevent  this  thing.  But  when  the 
Church  in  General  Convention  instructs  him  that  it  is 
unsuitable,  it  puts  behind  him  the  force  of  the  Church's 
opinion.  It  suggests  to  the  people  the  unsuitableness  of 
it;  it  teaches  them,  and  in  every  way  does  good.  I  do 
not  want  to  make  more  speeches  than  are  necessary, 
but  these  two  considerations  are,  I  think,  worthy  to  be 
submitted  to  the  clergy  and  l^ity  of  this  Church,  with 
reference  to  such  a  resolution. 

A  Deputy  : — I  beg  to  cull  attention  to  the  con- 
secration of  office  [speaker  then  read  from  the  con- 
secration office,  the  supplication  for  the  Lord  to  be  pre- 
sent with  those  who  are  gathered  together,  with  all  hu- 
mihty  of  heart  to  consecrate  this  place].  Now,  it  seems  to 
me  that  passing  a  canon  like  this  is  simply  doing  what 
has  been  done  in  the  Consecration  Service  of  the 
Church. 

Another  Deputy  : — I  object  to  this  canon  that  it  is 
too  much  like  special  legislation.  It  is  olTered  because 
it  is  considered  a  desecration  of  the  church.  I  don't 
see  why  this  single  mode  of  desecrating  a  church  should 
besingkdout.  Many  think  it  is  wrong  to  sell  or  rent 
pews  at  all.  The  passage  of  this  is  an  expression  of  an 
opinion  that  it  is  not  wrong,  provided  it  is  not  done  in 
the  church.  But  this  is  not  a  desecration  any  more  than 
other  business.  I  think  the  opinion  has  been  expressed 
in  this  church  that  some  arrangements  should  be  made 
for  holding  a  General  Convention  in  other  buildings  than 
churches.  This  is  a  business  of  the  Church.  And  the 
desecration  of  the  church  by  selling  pews  is  not  a  neces- 


204 


sary  consequence  no  more  than  any  other  business  trans- 
acted in  the  church.  Such  things  as  hanging  auction- 
eei s' flags  at  the  door  of  a  church  are  not  necessary. 
In  the  church  that  1  am  in  the  habit  of  attending,  our 
minister  niaices  it  his  business  to  see  that  the  thing  is 
done  with  strict  propriety.  I  thinii  it  is  loo  late  in  the 
session  to  consider  it  at  this  time.  If  any  action  is  neces- 
sary,  it  shou'd  be  a  general  one,  and  embracing  all 
modes  in  which  a  church  can  be  desecrated. 

The  mation  to  defer  the  further  consideration  of  this 
matter  to  the  next  General  Convention  was  lost. 

A  Deputy  suggested  that  it  should  be  put  in  the  form 
of  a  concurrent  resolution. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead  : — A  resolution  of  this  House  is  all 
we  want. 

Rev.  Dr.  Hare — hoped  because  it  was  the  last  day 
of  the  session,  no  unnecessary  legislation  would  be 
had,  in  order  to  have  business  transacted.  He  thought 
a  recommendatory  resolution  with  reference  to  the  mat- 
ter, would  be  elFectual  as  in  the  case  of  associated  rec- 
torships, which,  being  declared  by  resolution  of  the  Con- 
vention to  be  inconsistent  with  the  greatest  good  of  con- 
gregations, ceased  to  be.  It  had  ever  been  the  custom  of 
the  Convention  to  avoid  excessive  legislation.  He  would 
like  the  indecorum  which  it  is  intended  to  prevent,  pre- 
vented. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead — would  be  perfectly  satisfied  with  such 
action.  The  churchmanship  of  his  parish  was  such  that 
the  simple  expression  of  the  opinion  of  this  respectable 
House  would  be  all  that  would  be  needed  to  have  every 
necessary  decorum  in  the  matter. 

A  Deputy  from  Connecticut  said  that  would  be  sat- 
isfactory to  him  provided  itcouldbe  mide  to  reach 
every  parish  in  the  land,  and  not  simply  to  go  upon  the 
Journal  and  pass  from  memory  as  many  resolutions 
had. 

The  President  : — The  rectors  will  have  to  bring  it 
to  the  notice  of  their  parishes. 

The  secretary  then  read  the  proposed  canon  chang- 
ed in'.o  the  form  of  a  resolution,  as  follows : 

Resolved,  As  the  sense  of  this  House,  that  it  is  improp- 
er to  si.ll  or  lease  any  pew  or  seat  in  any  consecrated 
church  or  chapel  by  public  sale  held  withiu  the  walls  of 
such  church  or  chapel. 

Kev.  Dr.  Paddock: — I  want  to  suggest  an  amend- 
ment to  that,  namely,  that  the  "  House  of  Bishops  con- 
curring, it  is  the  sense  of  this  Convention,"  etc.,  so  as 
to  turn  it  into  a  joint  resolution,  instead  of  an  expression 
of  the  mind  of  this  House  simply.  The  House  of  Bish- 
ops will    concur  in  such  a  resolution. 

Rev.  Dr.  Hubbard — (who  had  suggested  the  resolu- 
tion-form), accepted  the  amendment. 

A  DilPUTY  suggested  thiit  the  word  "  wrong"  should 
be  substituted  in  the  place  of  the  word  "  improper" 
as  stronger;  but  the  amendment  was  not  accepted. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mauan  : — I  wish  the  subject  could  be 
brought  before  this  House  and  more  thoroughly  consid- 
ered as  to  what  is  the  nature  of  resolutions  of  this  kind. 


i  At  the  same  time,  it  seems  to  me,  that  from  the  course  of 
our  legislation  there  is  apt  to  be  such  an  accumulation 
of  canons,  etc.,  that  they  would  gradually  lose  their  effect 
upon  the  minds  of  the  Church;  especially  these  resolu- 
tions are  apt  to  lose  their  effect  because  they  are  so  little 
understood,  as  to  what  their  effect  may  be.  There  is 
no  use  to  attempt  to  legislate  unless  it  is  in  the  proper 
form  of  legislation,  namely,  a  canon.  I  do  not  think 
any  time  would  be  lost,  to  wait  until  we  had  that  matter 
in  such  a  shape  that  we  could  make  a  canon  of  it.  if  we 
pass  the  resolution,  that  is  regardd  as  covering  the 
case  in  some  measure,  and  it  will  greatly  increase  the 
difficulty  when  we  desire  to  make  a  canon  of  it.  It 
strikes  me  on  the  whole  as  more  wise  to  defer  this  mat- 
ter, and  at  the  next  General  Convention  let  it  be  thor- 
oughly considered  and  brought  into  proper  shape  for  a 
canon. 

Rev.  Dr.  Me.\d  : — The  House  has  just  refused  to  do 
that  by  a  vote,     i 

Rev.  Dr.  Mahan  : — I  make  these  remarks  merely  for 
the  purpose  of  personal  explanation.  I  would  like  to 
give  some  reasons  for  not  voting  for  a  measure  of  this 
kind  when  it  really  expresses  what  I  desire.  I  am  not 
opposed  to  it,  but  I  think  such  a  measure  is  important 
enounti  for  us  to  make  a  canon  of  it ;  therefore  I  would 
rather  wait   until  we  can  niiike  a  canon. 

Rev.  Dr.  Howe: — I'erhaps  the  objection  which  the 
Reverend  gentleman  from  Maryland  makes  would  be 
removed  if  we  ordered  it,  being  a  concurrent  resoluiion 
of  both  houses,  to  be  placed  immediately  after  the  canons, 
in  a  conspicuous  place. 

Rev.  Dr.  Hubbakd: — My  objection  to  making  it  a 
part  of  the  canon  law  is,  that  1  wo  Id  ■  e  unwilliiig  to 
introduce  into  the  canon  laws  a  recognition  of  the  selling 
of  pews  in  the  house  of  God. 

Rev.  Dr.  Labagh: — If  we  do  anything  on  this  subject 
I  humbly  submit  that  we  should  do  it  in  the  form  of  a 
canon.  It  has  been  admitted  from  time  to  time  that 
resolutions  passed  are  lost  sight  of  in  the  great  body  of 
resolutions.  We  have  had  for  sixty  years  a  resolution 
of  this  House  that  this  year  has  been  adopted  in  the 
form  of  a  canon.  Ever  since  ISOS  there  has  been  a 
resolution  that  no  clergyman  should  unite  in  marriage  per- 
sons who  had  been  divorced,  either  party  living,  except 
on  account  of  adultery.  The  ground  has  been  taken  that 
that  resolution  has  been  inoperative,  and  has  produced 
no  effect,  and  that  it  has  become  necessary,  on  account 
of  the  growing  evil,  to  put  this  in  the  form  of  a  canon 
to  make  it  operative  and  give  it  effect.  Now  put  this  in 
the  form  of  a  resolution,  and  it  goes  on  the  minutes. 
Very  few  of  our  clergy  have  all  the  minutes.  A  new 
man  comes  in  and  he  knows  nothing  about  these  reso- 
lutions. Must  he  hunt  through  the  minutes  of  the  past 
Conventions  to  find  out  the  sense  of  this  body.  Almost 
every  clergyman  possesses  himself  of  a  copy  of  the 
canons,  and  if  this  were  a  canon  he  would  see  it.  If  it 
is  made  a  resolution,  it  will  be  like  the  resolution  which 


205 


has  lain  among  our  minutes  sixty  years,  and  which  we 
have  just  found  it  necessary,  to  give  it  effect,  to  put  in 
the  form  of  a  canon.  If  we  do  anything  on  this  sub- 
ject, if  it  is  sufficiently  important  that  the  mind  of  the 
Church  should  be  expressed,  we  should  put  it  in  the 
form  of  a  canon. 

The  Secretary  then  read  the  resolution  as  amended 
makinj!  it  a  joint  resolution. 

Mr.  Welsh  : — I  understand  that  it  is  changed  from  a 
canon  to  a  resolution.  I  think  the  resolution  of  that 
kind  is  like  that  law  of  an  ancient  nation,  that  a  person 
might  steal  if  he  were  not  found  out.  If  I  understand 
this  resolution  aright,  it  represents  that  the  wron^  is  ; 
only  in  the  mode  of  doing  it.  I  think  the  wrong  is  in 
the  thing  itself 

The  resolution  was  then  adopted. 

Rev.  Dr.  II.^ight — announced  the  receipt  of  a  second 
communication  from  Prof.  Barnard  with  regard  to  the 
cycle.  On  his  motion  it  was  referred  to  the  Joint  Com- 
mittee on  the  Prayer  Book. 

Oiv  motion  of  the  Rev.  Ur.  Haight  it  was  ordered  that 
the  Secretary  furnish  bound  copies  of  the  Journal  to 
persons  paying  the  cost  of  binding. 

CLOSIXO    ADDKE99    OF    THE    PRFSIDEXT. 

Genileinen,  as  it  is  not  probable  that  we  shall  meet 
again  in  the  same  relation  which  we  now  hold  to  each 
other,  I  hope  the  House  will  indulge  me  to  say  from  my 
place, — the  place  with  which  you   have   honored  me — 
two   or   three   things   that   press   upon    my  heart,  and 
which  would  not  be  merely  an  ordinary  farewell.     It  is 
but  the  reiteration  of  the  common  feeling  and  the  gen- 
eral expression  of  all  who  have  attended  the  sessions  of 
this  Mouse,  lo  utter  my  assured  conviction  that  the  ex- 
traordinary harmony  and  the  cordial  courtesy,  and  the 
manil'estation  of  fraternal  affection,  which  have  distin- 
guished  the   deliberations  of   this  body  from  its  com- 
mencement to  its  close  could  have  come,  under  the  cir- 
cumstances in  which  we  have  been  placed  and  with  the 
e.xciiing  quesi ions  which  have  been  before  us,  from  no 
other  source  than  the  guidance  and  presiding  influence 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.     For  this  precious  gift  and  grace  of 
God  let  us  render  to  Him  all  the  praise  and  gratitude  of 
which  our  poor  hearts  are  capable.     We  humbly  and 
thankfully  take  it  for  an  earnest  that  God  will  continue 
to  be  gracious  to  this   Branch  of  His  Church,  and  de- 
signs her,  small  as  she  is,  to  exert  a  blessed  influence  in 
moulding  the  character  and  shaping  the  destiny  of  this 
new  world  in  which  our  lot  is  cast.     He  will  control  and 
overrule,  I  am  persuaded,  the  agitations  and  aberrations 
of  the  day  to  greater  good  than  we  now  contemplate. 
These  are  but  the  signs  and  have  been  the  necessities  of 
a  more  exuberant  life  than  we  have  had   before.     As 
that  life  e.spresses  itself  in  the  one  direction  upon  which 
our  minds  have  been  fi.xed  here,  all  of  us  will  agree  to 
maintain  and  preserve  all   that  trul}'  tends  to  produce 
those  two  things  which  God  has  so  emphatically  conse- 
crated in  His  public  worship — beauty  and  glory ;  while 


we  reject  all  that  is  tawdry,  mean,  and  trifling  in  that 
public  worship.  And  as  far  as,  on  cither  hand,  this 
teeming  life  has  degenera'ted  into  false  doctrine  and  dis- 
loyalty to  the  Church,  men  of  mere  subjective  faith 
will  go  to  their  own  place,  out  of  the  Church,  following 
Newman  and  Manning,  on  the  one  side,  or  Colenso  and 
Baptist  Noel  on  the  other.  Even  so,  this  will  but  purify 
and  strengthen  the  Church. 

But  the  most  important  and  continuing  subject  of 
gratulation  in  this  American  Church, to  my  mind,  is  the 
fidelity  with  which  we  have  adhered  to  the  Divinely 
given  pattern  of  a  Christian  Council  by  making  the 
laity  an  essential  portion  of  such  Council.  Our  now 
extended  experience  in  the  praelical  working  of  this 
Divine  pattern  enables  us  to  say  confidently  to  our 
brethren  in  England  and  the  new  provinces  of  England 
who  are  trying  to  bring  their  synodal  organization  to  a 
higher  standard,  that  the  lay  element  in  this  body  has 
at  all  times  been  at  once  progressive  and  eminently  con- 
servative, that  it  is  an  effectual  preservative  against 
caste  legislation,  and  in  my  opinion  contributes  largely 
to  the  dignity,  courtesy,  and  high  character  of  this  Gen- 
eral Convention. 

The  Church,  I  trust,  my  brethren,  is  rising  to  a 
higher  estimation  of  her  powers  and  capabilities.  Each 
of  her  ministers  has  begun  already  and  will  conlinue 
more  and  more  to  be  not  merely  a  workman  himself  but 
ihe  leader  and  guide  of  a  body  of  working  people.  It 
seems  to  me  the  only  way  in  which  we  can  fulfil  our 
mission  in  evangelizing  this  country  is  for  the  laity  to 
occupy  by  lay-reading  under  the  control,  and  « ith  the 
assistance,  of  their  respective  ministers  every  accessible 
position  where  the  Church  can  be  planted,— thus  every 
minister  multiplying  himself  and  his  authority'  almost 
indefinitel}\  Gentlemen,  I  thank  you  for  your  atten- 
tion. I  thank  you  for  your  indulgence  to  me  through 
all  this  long  session,  and  in  the  sacred  services  tonight 
we  will  bid  each  other  affectionately  farewell. 

On  motion,  by  an  unanimous  vote,  the  address  of  the 
President  was  ordered  to  be  entered  on  the  Journal  of 
Ihe  House. 

Messages  Nos.  78  to  85  were  here  rei'eived  from  the 
House  of  Bishops;  No.  85  relating  to  the  nomination  by 
the  House  of  Bishops  of  Ozi  \V.  Whitaker  as  Jlission- 
ary  Bishop  for  Nevada  and  Arizona. 

Rev,  Dr  Mkad — moved  concurrence  in  the  nomina- 
tion of  Missionary  Bishop  for  Nevada  and  Arizona. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mahan: — Would  it  not  be  right  to  inquire 
at  this  crisis  whether  anything  is  known  in  the  House, 
of  the  gentleman  whom  we  are  called  upon  to  vote  for  ? 
Rev.  Dr.  Adams: — I  have  to  say  that  Bishop  Talbot 
has  been  in  the  House  and  testifies  that  he  has  been  a 
presbyter  under  his  care,  and  that  he  is  a  very  admira- 
ble man  ;  he  is  a  graduate  of  the  Theological  Seminary. 
Rev.  Dr.  Van  DeUSEN: — The  Right  Reverend  As- 
sistant Bishop  of  Indiana  is  the  Bishop  who  nominated 
him  as  Missionary  Bishop.     I  am  authorized  to  present 


/ 


206 


certificates  connected  with  Mr.  Whitakcr's  former  his- 
tory, that  I  think  will  be  calculated  to  relieve  the  mind 
of  the  Convention  of  any  doubt  in  consenting  to  his 
nomination.  [A  biographical  sketch  of  the  nominee 
was  then  read,  concluding  with  the  statement  that  "he 
is  not  in  sympathy  wiih  radical  views."] 

Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin: — 1  would  like  to  inquire  what 
is  meant  by  radical  views.     [Laughter.] 

Hon.  Mr.  RuGGLF.s:— How  many  parishes  are  there 
in  the  proposed  diocese? 

Kcv.  Dr.  HaiGht: — It  is  a  missionary  jurisdiction. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead  [in  the  Chair] :— The  Cbair  will  take 
opportunity  to  state  to  the  House  that  from  a  statement 
of  some  Bishops  he  is  well  satisfied  of  the  acceptable- 
ness  of  the  character  of  the  person  elected,  that  he  was 
unanimously  elected  to  the  House  of  Bishops. 

Rev.  Dr.  Van  Deusen  : — I  would  add  to  what  I  have 
said  that  Bishop  Odenheimer  of  New  Jersey  and  Bishop 
Bedell  of  Ohio  endorse  Mr.  Whitaker. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead — in  answer  to  an  inquiry  by  Dr. 
Adams  said,  that  a  majoiity  of  the  quorum  of  the  House 
would  be  sufficient  to  elect. 

The  House  then  proceeded  to  vote  by  dioceses  and 
orders;  Rev.  Dr.  Mahan  and  Hon.  S.  B.  Ruggles  being 
tellers. 

Rev.  Dr.  Littlejoiin — moved  that  the  vote  be  the 
order  of  the  day  at  four  o'clock,  he  was  not  prepared 
to  vote  now. 

Rev.  Dr.  Shelton  : — I  do  not  wi.sh  to  make  a  gre^ 
point  in  this  case,  but  I  wish  to  make  my  protest  against 
such  a  course  of  conduct  as  this.  The  Bishops  should 
have  given  us  this  nomination  long  ago,  not  have  put  it 
off  until  this  last  hour  when  we  are  on  the  eve  of  taking 
our  leave.  It  exposes  us  to  great  hazard.  It  is  true 
they  say  that  they  are  well  satisfied ;  that  ought  in  gen- 
eral to  be  satisfactory  to  us.  But  I  know  that  men  are 
liable  to  make  mistakes;  and  under  circumstances  of 
this  kind  we  ought  not  to  be  e.\posed  to  making  the  mis- 
take they  put  us  in  danger  of  making.  We  may  make  a 
gross  mistake.  I  for  one  do  not  want  to  be  put  in  this  posi- 
tion. We  are  called  upon,  without  any  knowledge  of 
the  person,  to  put  our  names  to  a  thing  which  testifies 
that  we  are  perfectly  satisfied.  The  Scriptures  tell  us 
that  [consecrating]  hands  should  be  laid  suddenly  upon 
no  man.  For  one  I  do  not  feel  disposed  to  sign  the 
document. 

A  Deputy  : — Some  members  of  this  House  under- 
stood, a  few  days  snice,  indirectly,  of  course,  that  no  ac- 
tion would  be  taken,  durnig  the  present  session  of  the 
Convention,  to  till  that  post.  This  measure  comes  very 
■unexpectedly,  I  am  sure,  upon  many  members  of  this 
House,  as  upon  myself.  If  pressed  now  to  vote,  the  in- 
evitable vote  would  be,  however  reluctant,  against  con- 
currence. 

Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin  : — I  should  find  relief  in  this  case, 
in  the  fact  that  it  is  expressly  iinnounced  to  us  from  the 
House  of  Bishops  that  the  election  in  that   House  is 


unanimous.  I  suppose  they  expressly,  put  that  into  the 
mes.sage  in  order  to  apologize  fur  their  lateness  in  send- 
ing to  us  this  nomination.  1  do  not  mean  to  say  it 
should  control  us  ;  but  if  they  were  unanimous  I  should 
feel  more  at  liberty. 

Hon.  S.  B.  Ruggles  : — I  cannot  but  think,  and  I  wish 
to  call  the  attention  of  the  House  to  what  is  a  broad 
proposition,  that  it  is  not  quite  in  order,  nor  consistent 
with  the  privileges  of  this  House,  to  adduce  the  exam- 
ple of  the  other  House,  either  its  unanimity  Qr  want  pf 
unanimity.  I  thirfk  it  is  not  a  proper  reference,  to  cite 
the  action  of  the  other  House  to  influence  our  judg- 
ment, which  ought  to  be  independent  of  the  action  of 
the  othei'  House. 

Rev.  Dr.  Haigdt: — I  understood  from  one  of  the 
Bishops  who  was  in  the  house  that,  in  case  this  action 
should  fail,  owing  to  want  of  attendance,  it  really  would 
make  no  difference,  as  the  presiding  Bishop  would  call 
a  special  session  of  the  House  of  Bishops,  to  mature  and 
make  a  nomination,  and  send  it  down  to  the  Standing 
Committees.  I  feel  very  much  pressed  by  the  cgnsid- 
eration  of  want  of  time.  At  the  same  time,  I  feel  very 
reluctant  to  oppose  it,  or  give  my  vote  against  a  unani- 
mous recommendation  of  the  House  of  Bishops  in  re- 
gard to  a  person  of  whom  I  know  nothing  at  all  ; 
never  having  heard  his  name  mentioned  but  once  be- 
fore. 

Rev.  Dr.  jMead  :— The  views  of  the  Deputy  from  New 
York  are  not  sustained  by  the  only  canon  under  which 
the  Bishops  can  act,  which  authorizes  them,  in  case  of 
vacancy  in  any  missionary  jurisdiction  of  a  Bishop  al- 
ready elected,  to  act  in  the  matter  proposed.  This 
Bishop  is  not  elected  ;  and  unless  he  is  elected,  they 
will  not  have  the  power  for  three  years  to  fill  the  va- 
cancy. 

Rev.  Dr.  Goodwin  ; — I  said  I  did  not  suppose  that  this 
action  of  the  House  of  Bishops  should  control  the  action 
of  this  House,  but  I  supposed  the  announcement  of  the 
unanimity  of  the  House  of  Bishops  might  be  considered 
some  evidence  to  this  House,  who  are  ignorant  in  regard 
to  the  person  nominated.  I  only  know  he  does  not 
hold  radical  views.  [Laughter.]  This  is,  to  my  mind, 
some  degree  of  evidence  that  he  is  a  proper  man.  If  I 
had  any  knowledge  to  the  contrary,  their  unanimous 
vote  would  not  have  the  weight  of  a  feather  in  control- 
ling my  vote. 

The  Pkesident  said  he  did  not  think  the  Standing 
Committees  could  possibly  have  anything  to  do  with 
this  matter. 

Rev.  Dr.  Adams: — Bishop  Talbot  has  given  personal 
information  in  regard  to  this  gentleman  which  I  have 
communicated  to  this  Hou.se.  If  any  gentleman  has 
personal  knowledge  of  him,  I  think  it  should  be  brought 
before  this  House. 

Hon.  S.  B.  Ruggles: — To  make  any  statement  of  the 
action  of  the  upper  House  is  a  breach  of  privilege. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead  :  —The   message  itself  contains   that 


807 


statement,  and  they  have  a  perfect  right  te  make  it. 
If  n  measure  is  passed  by  us  unanimously,  tliey  are  en- 
titled to  know  that,  and  we  are  entitled  to  know  wheth- 
er they  have  done  anything  unanimously. 

Hon.  S.  B.  RuGOLEs: — It  is  not  a  want  of  confidence 
in  our  Right  Reverend  Fathers  ;  but  I  do  say  for  the 
example  of  one  of  two  legislative  bodies  to  be  intro- 
dueed  into  the  other,  is  an  interference  with  the  rights 
of  that  body.  I  protest  agamst  the  principle,  as  con- 
trary to  parliamentary  principles,  of  having  the  action 
of  the  other  House  adduced  in  this. 

A  Deputy: — It  is  very  important  that  this  matter 
should  be  acted  upon  this  afternoon.  The  matter  might 
well  lie  until  four  o'clock,  but  it  should  be  disposed  of 
this  afternoon.  The  history  of  the  Church  in  Nebraska 
during  the  last  three  years  shows  the  decided  impor- 
tance of  having  a  Missionary  Bishop  ;  and  this  country, 
that  is  now  provided  for  by  this  resolution  of  the  House 
of  Bishops,  will  go  unattended  to,  to  a  very  great  de- 
gree, if  we  do  not  concur  m  their  action.  It  is  true, 
the  presiding  Bishop  may  designate  some  other  Bishop 
of  the  Church  to  exercise  the  jurisdiction  there.  But 
it  is  a  section  of  the  country  lying  very  far  from  the 
residence  of  any  other  Bishop,  and,  to  a  very  consider- 
able extent,  inaccessible;  and  the  country  cannot  have 
the  immediate  supervision  which  it  requires  unless  this 
action  be  taken  this  afternoon.  It  is  well  enough  to 
let  it  lie  until  four  o'clock,  that  the  members  of  this 
House  may  advise  this  House  with  respect  to  the  nomi- 
nee, but  it  is  important  that  it  should  be  disposed  of 
before  the  final  adjournment  As  to  qualifications,  it 
seems  to  me  quite  enough  that  a  member  of  this  House 
should  testify  in  such  an  unqualified  and  specific  man- 
ner, as  he  has.  Then  superadd  to  that,  that  he  is  a  man 
who,  with  all  these  high  qualifications,  has  gone  out 
from  a  country  where  he  could  have  enjoyed  the  bless- 
ings and  advantages  of  civilization,  and  spent  six  years 
in  such  a  country  as  Nevada.  It  shows  that  he  has  in 
his  heart  the  right  sort  of  spirit.  Such  testimonials 
seem  to  me  to  be  sufficient. 

Rev.  Dr.  Hare: — I  hope  the  vote  will  not  prove  to 
be  unsatisfactory  with  regard  to  this  gentleman.  The 
other  day,  on  the  nomination  of  the  House  of  Bishops, 
we  elected  a  Reverend  gentleman  who  is  already  in  the 
possession  of  competent  means  of  maintenance.  I  fear 
that  the  facts  of  that  case  maj',  by  possibilit}',  hinder 
the  Church  from  the  benefit  of  enjoying  his  ministra- 
tions The  fact  that  this  gentleman  is  already  in  the 
field  to-day  is  a  strong  argument  in  his  favor ;  and  I 
only  hope  that  we  shall  have  such  additional  testimony, 
over  and  above  that  from  the  House  of  Bishops,  as  to 
enable  us  to  sign  his  testimonials. 

Rev.  Dr.  DeKoven  : — 1  simply  want  to  say  what  I 
suppose  has  been  said  before.  The  fact  is,  our  Bouse  is 
exceedingly  empty.  Whole  delegations  are  away,  and 
it  is  hardly  proper  and  right,  under  these  circumstances, 
that  we  are  called  upon  to  make  a  choice  which,  once 


made,  is  irrevocable.  T  beg  leave  to  say  also  that  we 
do  not  know  but  that  the  House  of  Bishops  may  be 
equally  uninformed,  an  1  that  consc(|uently  a  unanimous 
decision  on  their  jiart  may  not  be  the  same  as  if  it  had 
taken  place  several  days  ago.  It  does  seem  to  me  an 
important  thing  that  this  House  should  be  able  to  testi- 
fy upon  its  own  knowledge  of  the  qualifications  of  any 
man  for  so  important  a  work.  And  I  would  like  to  in- 
quire whether  there  is  any  person  on  the  floor  of  this 
House  who  is  able,  of  personal  knowledge — I  do  not 
mean  by  hearsay,  by  the  report  of  this  or  that  Bishop, 
or  person — to  testify  of  the  qualifiialions  of  the  gentle- 
man nominated  to  this  House.  And  if  there  be  no  such 
person,  I  submit  whether  this  House  ought  to  take  this 
important  notion. 

Message  No.  66  from  the  House  of  Bishops  was  here 
received,  announcing  the  appointment  of  the  Bishop  of 
Maryland  and  the  Bishop  of  Connecticut  as  members, 
on  their  part,  of  the  Joint  Committee  on  Theological 
studies. 

The  Secretary  announced  that  the  message  .sent  to 
the  Bishop  of  London  had  been  transmitted,  and  was 
in  England  by  that  time. 

Rev.  Dr.  DeKoven  (continuing)  : — I  want  to  say 
further,  that  with  regard  to  this  territory,  there  was  once 
before,  at  a  previous  General  Convention,  a  nomination 
to  this  jurisdiction ;  and  the  nomination  was  declined. 
I  believe  that  the  House  of  Bi-hops  did  not  make  a  fur- 
ther nomination  because  it  was  said  that  the  population 
of  tlie  territory  had  diminished  ;  ami  Nevada  was  placed 
under  the  charge  of  the  Bishop  of  California  ;  who  I  be- 
lieve has  visited  it ;  and  1  suppose  that  it  would  be  no  harm 
for  it  to  remiin  under  his  supervision  for  the  next  three 
years.  It  does  seem  to  me  that  it  would  be  a  great  deal 
better  to  put  ofT  the  matter,  if  it  be  in  our  power  to  do 
so,  until  the  next  General  Convention. 

The  SkcRETARYofthe  Hou<e  of  Bishops — announced 
that  he  was  instructed  to  inform  the  House  of  Clerical 
and  Lay  Deputies  that  they  were  prepared  to  adjouro 
and  they  propose  to  hold  a  session  this  evening,  for  the' 
reading  of  the  Pastoral  Letter  at  Calvary  Church. 

Mr.  Hamtltoh  FiSH^offered  a  joint  resolution, 
which  was  adopted,  changing  the  name  of  the  Freed- 
men's  Commission  to  the  name  of  Home  Missionary 
Commission  for  Colored  People. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mead  : — If  I  may  be  permitted  once  more 
to  say  a  few  words,  perhaps  1  may  satisfy  the  tender  con- 
sciences of  some  members  of  this  House  in  the  most  im- 
portant step  we  have  to  take.  With  regard  to  the 
introduction  of  persons  into  the  ministry  of  this  Church, 
the  canons  of  the  Church  require  personal  knowledge, 
or,  if  that  cannot  be  had,  satisfactory  evidence.  Personal 
knowledge  is  not  absolutely  required.  Gentlemen  have 
spoken  dbout  the  Bishops  taking  this  matter  in  hand  af- 
ter we  adjourned,  and  sending  it  down  to  the  standing 
committees.  What  would  be  the  coudiliou  of  the  stand- 
ing committees  ?   What  better  evidence  would  they  have 


208 


than  is  now  presented  to  us.  When  a  whole  House  of 
Bishops  present  a  nomination  to  us,  are  we  scepti- 
cal ?  It  appears  to  me  to  be  preposterous.  I  would 
humlily  and  respectfully  bes  at  this  late  hour  that  we 
should  promptly  act  upon  this  question.  Moreover  here 
is  a  man  who  is  on  the  spot,  who  knows  what  the  work 
is ;  a  man  who  has  been  suc•ces^ful  in  his  work.  We 
have  suffieient  authority  (or  that  statement.  And  more- 
over he  is  a  man,  we  are  to  presume,  of  sufficient  learn- 
ing. He  is  a  graduate  of  one  of  the  highest  literary 
institutions  in  the  United  States,  Harvard  University ; 
and  he  is  a  graduate  of  the  Theological  Seminary.  Is 
not  this  collateral  testimony.  Then  away,  dear  brethren, 
viith  this  doubt  and  hesitation,  because  it  is  impossible  to 
doiibtthe  wisdom,  prudence,  and  integrity  of  our  bishops. 
Rev.  Dr.  Haight: — I  have  availed  myself  of  certain 
opportunities  which  I  have  had  to  inquire  with  regard 
to  this  gentleman,  and  I  have  come  to  the  conclusion  to 
cast  my  vote  heartily  in  his  favor.  I  think  if  gentlemen 
will  take  the  trouble  to  satisfy  themselves,  they  can  soon 
do  so,  but  1  should  not  hesitate  one  instant  after  the  ar- 
gument and  appeal  which  my  honored  and  reverend 
friend  has  just  made  to  this  House. 

Kev.  Mr.  Dreck  : — I  have  grave  dilBculties  with  re- 
gard to  this  matter  ;  and  it  is  a  difficult  kind  of  subject, 
this  matter  of  getting  information  with  regard  to  gentle- 
men ;  and  it  is  a  thing  which  gentlemen  hesitate  to 
express  on  this  floor,  however  willing  they  may  be  to 
express  themselves  privately.  We  have  had  the  names 
of  one  or  two  bishops  brought  in,  and  I  don't  know 
whether  it  is  proper  for  us  to  be  thus  influenced  by  the  en- 
dorsement of  the  bishops.  The  whole  of  the  bishops 
were  not  there  ;  it  is  a  thin  House,  and  we  might  go 
and  ask  did  such  and  such  a  bishop  in  the  immediate  vi- 
cinity of  this  gentleman  endorse  him,  and  we  might  find 
that  he  did  not  endorse  him — that  he  was  not  satisfied 
that  he  was  the  proper  person  to  be  elected. 

A  Deputy — hoped  this  would  not  be  sent  to  the 
Standing  Committees. 

The  President  : — It  cannot  be  sent  to  the  Standing 
Committees  under  the  present  state  of  the  law. 

A  Deputy  : — I  understand  we  are  not  without  some 
record  as  to  this  gentleman  in  the  history  of  the  Church. 
I  am  informed  that  in  the  Spirk  uf  Missions  there  is 
a  testimony  given  for  an  incidental  purpose,  and  therefore 
more  disinterested,  from  the  Bishop  of  California,  as  to 
the  excellence  of  the  work  which  this  gentleman  has 
done  in  the  region  where  he  is  now  laboring.  I  am  told 
that  he  bears  the  fullest  testimonials  as  to  success  and 
the  possession  of  all  the  iiualities  we  could  desire  in  a 
bishop  in  that  region.  1  think  we  may  assume  with  the 
testimonials  given  here  and  there,  that  he  presents  him- 
self with  claims  upon  our  confidence.  This  gentleman 
was  a  minister,  I  believe,  under  the  supervision  of  Bishop 
Talbot,  when  he  had  jurisdiction  in  that  section.  Afier 
the  division  of  the  missionary  jurisdiction  of  the  North - 
West,  and  after  the  declinature  of  Dr.  Howe,  that  cour- 
try  was  placed  under  the  episcopal  jurisdiction  of  Bishop 


Kip.  I  am  informed  that  Bishop  Talbot  and  Bishop  Kip 
under  whom  he  has  been  working  for  the  last  three  years, 
not  only  endorse  him,  but  in  the  House  of  Bishops  spoke 
in  his  behalf  very  warmlj'. 

'I'he  President: — That  testimony  would  not  be 
proper  to  refer  to  here. 

The  DEruTY.— I  withdraw  it.     [Laughter.] 
Mr.  Welsh. — When  the  name  was  first  mentioned  I 
was  not  prepared  to  sign;  but  since  then  I  have  obtained 
information,  not  from  the  House  of  Bishops,  which  has 
perfectly  satisfied  me. 

Rev.  Dr.  Maiian.—  Could  not  a  little  of  that  informa- 
tion be  adduced  in  this  House.  I  for  one  would  like  ex- 
tremely to  have  a  little  information  concerning  him.  I 
can  not  take  the  mere  fact  that  other  persons  have  been 
satislied,  because  I  don't  know  what  would  satisfy  them; 
and  I  think  if  they  would  impart  to  us  a  little  of  the  in- 
formation that  has  satisfied  their  minds,  it  might  remove 
the  difliculty  which  we  feel. 

^Ir.  Hanson,  of  Alabama. — I  should  be  unwilling  to 
refuse  to  sign  the  testimonials;  but  after  what  has  been 
said,  I  am  exactly  in  the  difliculty  of  the  Reverend  dep- 
uty from  Maryland.  I  should  like  to  have  some  positive 
testimony.  It  does  seem  to  me  a  remarkable  circum- 
stance— that  the  gentleman  who  has  been  unanimously 
recommended  by  the  House  of  Bishops  as  qualified  to  fill 
that  high  episcopal  office,  should  have  no  gentleman  in 
this  House,  large  as  it  is,  who  is  personally  acquainted 
wiih  him,  and  capable  of  rising  up  here  and  testifvingto 
his  character;  and  I  hope  if  there  is  any  such  person 
present — as  I  am  sure  there  must  be — we  shall  havfj  the 
desired  information. 

A  Deputy. — I  understand  this  gentleman  has  spent 
his  whole  ministerial  life  in  the  field  where  he  is;  and  if 
so,  his  very  qualifications  account  for  this  want  of  testi- 
mony to  these  qualifications.  He  has  been  working  in 
Nevada,  and  there  is  nobody  to  testify  concerning  him 
except  Bishop  Kip.  I  hardly  think  it  fair  to  say  because 
a  man  has  spent  his  life  in  the  missionary  field,  and  has 
had  no  one  to  look  upon  his  work  and  testify  of  it,  there- 
fore he  is  not  a  man  to  be  a  bishop. 

On  the  suggestion  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Mead,  previous  to 
signing  the  testimonials  the  House  united  in  silent  devo- 
tion. 

On  motion  the  House  proceeded  to  ballot  upon  the 
confirmation. 

Message  No.  87  was  here  received  from  the  House  of 
Bishops,  announcing  the  adoption  of  the  change  of  name 
of  the  Freed  men's  Commission  to  the  Home  Missionary 
Commission  for  Colored  People. 
The  ballot  resulted  as  follows: 

27  dioceses  voting — ayes  18,  noes  7,  divided  2;  lay 
vote — 22  dioceses  voting — ayes  14,  noes  8. 

The  Rev.  Ozi  W.  Wbitaker  was  thereupon  declared 
elected  bishop. 

The  members  of  the  House  then  rose  and  chanted 
Gloria  in  ExceUis. 


m 


On  motion  the  House  proceeded  to  sign  the  testimoni- 
als of  Bishop  Whitaker.  i 

The  President. — I  take  the  opportunity  to  state  that 
in  conversation  with  the  Secretary  of  the  House,  I  am 
informed  that  he  has  been  familiar  with  the  character  of 
this  person,  and  that  he  is  a  man  of  tlie  noblest  character 
and  highest  qualifications. 

Rev.  Dr.  Mahan. — There  is  a  matter  of  business  that 
has  been  passed  over  with  regard  to  the  Committee  on 
Intercourse  with  the  Swedish  Church.     It  was  sent  down  j 
from  the  House  of  Bishops,  recommending  that  the  com-  ! 
mittee  be  continued.     I  propose  that  we  concur  in  the 
recommendation. 

The  House  thereupon  concurred  in  the  recommendar 
tion.  1 

Rev.  Dr.  Mahan  nominated  Judge  Otis,  of  Illinois, 
and  the  Rev.  Dr.  Paddock,  of  Michigan,  to  fill  vacancies 
on  the  part  of  the  House;  which  nominations  were 
adopted. 


On  motion  the  Secretary  was  instructed  to  transmit  to 
the  House  of  Bishops  the  certificate  of  the  election  of 
Bishop  Whitaker. 

The  Minutes  of  this  day's  proceedings  were  then  read 
and  approved. 

The  House  thereupon  adjourned,  to  meet  the  House 
of  Bishops  at  Calvary  Church,  at  7}^  P.  M. 

EVENING. 

Divine  service  was  held  in  Calvary  Church,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  joint  arrangements  of  the  two  Houses. 
Evening  Prayer  was  begun  by  the  Bishop  of  California, 
the  Missionary  Bishop  of  the  South-west  reading  the 
First  Lesson,  and  the  iMissionary  Bishop  of  Colorado  the 
Second.  The  Bishop  of  Ohio  said  the  Creed  and  the 
Prayers.  The  79th  Selection  was  then  sung;  after  which 
the  Bishop  of  Kentucky  read  the  Pastoral  Letter  of  the 
House  of  BMops.  The  Bishop  of  Wisconsin  read  the 
Collects  at  closing,  and  the  Bishop  of  Kentucky  gave  the 
Benediction. 


PASTORAL  LETTER  FROM  THE  HOUSE  OF  BISHOPS. 


Brethren,  beloved  in  the  Lord  : 

The   Incarnate  God   hath  committed  to  fallible  . 
men   that  great   commission   wherewith    He  came  '■ 
into   the  world,   from   the   Father   who   sent   Him.  i 
But,  to  His  ministers,  thus  weak  and  subject  to  error, 
He  hath  given  His  holy  and   infallible  Word,  that, 
without   peril  of  misleading    His   flock  we  may  in- 
struct them,  with  all  authority,  by  speaking  always 
according  to   the  Scriptures.     It  is  therefore  our 
duty,  and  with  gladness  we   perform   it,  to  address 
the  Churches  committed  to  our  care,  in  the  Pastoral 
Letter  which  our  brethren,  the  clergy  and  laity,  as- 
sembled in  this  Convention,  have  a;  ked  from  their 
chief  Pastors. 

First,  we  give  praise  to  Almighty  God  for  the  good 
examples  of  our  brethren  who  have  rested  from 
their  labours.  It  is  now  nine  years  since  we  met 
with  full  representation  of  all  our  Dioceses.  In  this 
period  sixteen  of  our  venerable  brethren  in  the 
Episcopate,  of  whom  two  were  presiding  Bishops, 
have  departed  this  life.  A  mortality  so  unusual 
impresses  your  Bishops  with  a  deep  sense  of  the 
shortness  and  uncertainty  of  their  own  future  upon 
earth,  and  leads  them  to  address  you  with  the  great- 
er solemnity. 

It    is  our  duty  to   make  grateful  mention  of  that 
measure  of  spiritual  increase  and  of  growth  in  num- 
bers and  resources,  of  which  there  is  abundant  evi- 
27 


dence  in  the  official  returns  of  our  several  Dioceses 
and  Missionarj'  jurisdictions.  To  God's  Ii»ly  Name 
be  all  the  glory,  but  to  us  confusion  of  face  ifi  view 
of  the  unprofitable  services  which  have  so  much 
limited  the  operations  of  the  Divine  mercy  amongst 
us. 

Great  has  been  our  consolation  amid  many  trials 
of  our  faith  and  patience,  in  the  entire  restoration 
of  our  unity  as  a  National  Church.  Amid  the  un- 
usual excitements  of  the  day,  let  us  bless  Almighty 
God  that  our  great  Council  has  met,  with  a  full 
representation  of  our  churches  in  all  parts  of  the 
land ;  and  with  a  wonderful  harmony  of  purpose 
and  of  action,  is  about  to  close  a  long  session,  from 
which  many  who  understand  us  not,  had  augured 
confusion,  and  every  evil  work.  We  lament  that 
while  the  labours  of  our  Missionaries,  at  home  and 
abroad,  have  been  so  noble  and  so  fruitful,  the  oflTer- 
ings  of  the  churches  by  which  they  should  have 
been  bountifully  sustained,  have  not  been  commen- 
surately  abundant.  Yet  we  must  not  forget  that 
much  has  been  done  for  the  support  of  Missions  and 
of  Missionary  institutions,  which  does  not  appear  in 
official  reports.  The  zeal  and  co-operative  labours 
of  our  people  are  steadily  increasing,  and  we  pray 
that  they  may  be  more  and  more  enlarged  and  re- 
warded. 

The  work  of  organized  benevolence,  in  manifold 


210 


forms,  has  been  considerably  developed,  and  we  re- 
joice that  among  such  efforts,  praiseworthy  and  suc- 
cessful exertions  have  not  been  wanting  in  behalf 
of  the  most  wretched  and  abandoned  of  sinners  and 
sufferers. 

Christian  education  is  receiving  an  enlarged 
measure  of  practical  attention,  and  schools  of  the 
parish  and  the  diocese  have  been,  to  a  cheering  ex- 
tent multiplied  and  effectively  worked. 

The  Christian  family  is  more  and  more  regarded 
among  us  as  the  Divine  Institution,  on  which  the 
Church  itself  mainly  relies  for  its  prosperity,  and  to 
which  nothing  less  than  the  succors  and  heavenly 
consolations  of  the  Church  of  Christ  can  impart  the 
means  of  perpetuity  and  perfection.  It  is  believed 
that  the  legislation  of  this  Convention  will  be  found 
to  have  contributed,  not  a  little,  to  the  purity  and 
sanctification  of  the  households  of  our  Communion. 

The  work  of  the  Church,  as  now  set  before  us  by 
Divine  Providence,  demands  a  word  of  exhortation. 
We  confide  in  our  reverend  brethren  the  Clergy,  to 
continue  their  labours  for  the  salvation  of  souls  with 
more  self  devotion,  and  greater  prayerfulness  and 
dependence  on  the  power  of  God  the  Holy  Ghost. 

But  corresponding  efforts  to  sustain  them  in  such 
labours  are  required  of  the  Laity  ;  and  we  rejoice 
that  they  have  specially  moved  us  to  urge  upon 
them,  in  this  Pastoral  address,  the  duty  of  minister- 
ing to  those  who  are  set  over  them  in  the  Lord,  "  in 
all  good  things."  Not  only  the  future  happiness  of 
immortal  souls,  but  even  the  temporal  well-being  of 
the  Nation,  is  absolutely  dependent  upon  the  per- 
petuation among  us  of  the  offices  of  our  Holy  Re- 
ligion. These  can  be  afforded  only  by  a  due  sup- 
ply of  well-trained  men,  ministering  the  Word  and 
Sacraments,  and  it  is  the  Law  of  Christ  that,  "they 
who  preach  the  Gospel  shall  live  of  the  Gospel." 
We  press  these  principles,  earnestly,  upon  the  con- 
sciences of  all  those  who  expect  to  give  an  account 
unto  Him  who  said  unto  His  servants,  "  whosoever 
receiveth  you  receiveth  Me,  and  whosoever  despis- 
eth  you  despiseth  Me." 

Much  thought  has  been  given  by  your  bishops, 
as  well  as  by  members  of  the  other  House  in  this 
Convention,  to  the  necessity  of  enlarged  associated 
effort  in  works  of  Mercy  and  Education.  Much 
that  needs  to  be  done  can  be  accomplished  in  no 
other  way ;  and  we  are  sure  that  men  and  women 
can  be  found,  "  the  love  of  Christ  constraining 
them,"  who  will  not  withhold  themselves  from  lives 
of  labour  and  self-denial,  in  ministering  to  the  sick 
and   needy,  in  caring  for  the   aged,  and  in   training 


the  young.  Though  nothing  more  than  a  decent 
maintenance  can  be  expected  by  such  devoted  ser- 
vants of  Christ,  it  must  be  remembered  that  nothing 
more  than  this  is  realized  by  thousands  who  sacri- 
fice not  only  their  bodies  but  their  souls,  in  hope  of 
this  world's  gain.  Let  it  be  understood  that  the 
sort  of  associations  we  thus  commend  must  be  whol- 
ly free  from  ensnaring  vows,  or  enforced  confes- 
sions, and  in  all  things  subject  to  Canonical  and 
Diocesan  authority. 

The  social  habits  of  our  country  afford  to  women, 
even  in  the  humbler  walks  of  life,  a  degree  of  ex- 
emption from  toil  and  industrial  activity,  unknown 
in  other  countries,  except  among  the  opulent. 
Hence  thousands  of  "  women  professing  godliness," 
dwell  among  us,  like  those  rebuked,  in  Holy 
Scriptures,  as  "  women  who  live  at  ease,  and  as  care- 
less daughters."  It  is  not  our  desire  merely  to  sug- 
gest the  need  of  a  reform  of  idleness  and  self-indul- 
gence, but  rather  to  awaken  convictions  that  are 
dormant,  and  to  enlist  affections  and  energies  that 
are  undeveloped.  It  is  the  peculiar  work  of  wom- 
an, in  Christian  society,  to  furnish,  in  manifold 
domestic  and  social  offices,  and  in  works  of  mercy, 
spiritual  as  well  as  physical,  a  pattern  "  of  whatso- 
ever things  are  pure  and  lovely  and  of  good  re- 
port." 

It  is  a  matter  of  painful  observation  to  your 
Bishops,  that,  more  especially  in  larger  towns  and 
great  cities,  where  the  need  and  the  opportunities 
for  continual  public  worship  are  greatest,  the 
churches  are  too  little  used,  at  all  seasons,  and  often, 
in  the  summer  months  are  closed,  even  upon  the 
day  of  the  Lord.  It  is  not  unusual,  in  England,  for 
four  or  five  services  to  be  celebrated,  in  a  parish- 
church,  on  Sundays,  for  successive  congregations, 
to  say  nothing  of  week-day  prayers,  with  homilies 
and  exhortations.  In  consecrated  houses  there  can 
be  no  private  ownership  that  is  not  entirely  subor- 
dinate to  the  ownership  of  God  Himself,  and  the 
uses  of  all  His  children  ;  and,  while  we  rejoice  in 
the  multiplication  of  churches,  professedly  free,  pro- 
vided they  are  properly  maintained,  we  suggest 
that  hundreds  of  our  churches,  apart  from  the  ordi- 
nary services  of  the  Lord's  Day,  might  be  freely 
opened  to  all  comers,  for  the  ministrations  of  the 
blessed  Gospel.  City  missions  might  thus  be  car- 
ried on,  in  many  places,  without  the  expense  of 
erecting  superfluous  and  inferior  churches,  and  the 
means  thus  saved  might  be  used  for  the  support  of 
the  requisite  Missionary  Clergy. 
But  everything  must  languish  in  the  Church  un- 


211 


til  all  our  families    are    made    truly  Christian,  and    1 
until    there  is,  as  of  old,  a  church  in    every  house,    i 
We  fear  that  the  old  duties  of  family  prayer,  of  the   [ 
daily  reading  of  God's  Holy  word,  and  of  parental 
catechising,  are  loo  unich  neglected.     Examples  ol 
manly  piety  are  not  abundant,  and  fathers  too  often 
forget   that  they  are  priests  in    their   own    houses. 
It  is  not  too  much  to  say,  that  the    secret  of   many 
an  unhappy  household  is  thus  pointed  out,  and  that 
no  house  stands  firm  that  does  not  rest  on  the   sure 
foundation  and  llie  blessed  Corner- Stone. 

While,  however,  we  thus  speak  to  you  of  the 
manifold  trusts  which  the  adorable  Head  of  the 
Church  has  committed  to  our  hands,  we  cannot  for 
get  that  the  Church  has  a  warfare  to  accomplish  as 
well  as  a  work  to  do.  Varying  in  its  forms  as  the 
ages  pass  along,  this  warfare  is  notwithstanding  al- 
ways the  same,  because  it  is  always  incited  by  the 
same  enemies  of  our  salvation,  and  always  directed 
against  the  Faith  and  the  Life  of  the  Church.  We 
should  be  faithless  to  our  trust,  did  we  not  say 
something  of  the  dangers  and  devices  which  beset 
the  Redeemer's  fold  and  peril  the  life  of  the  souls 
which  He  hath  purchased  with  His  precious  blood. 
A  covert  infidelity  which  borrows  the  language 
of  God's  lively  oracles,  even  while  it  seeks  to  de- 
stroy them  ;  which,  under  the  guise  of  a  candid  and 
searching  criticism  brings  to  nought  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures ;  which  uses  sounding  words  about  our  blessed 
Lord  while  it  denies  to  Him  every  attribute  of  Di- 
vinity, and  takes  away  from  His  offices  and  His 
work  every  characteristic  on  which  our  fallen  hu- 
manity can  rest  for  its  salvation  ;  which  puts  a  self- 
perfected  human  nature  in  place  of  the  new  man  in 
Christ  Jesus,  stands  foremost  among  these  dangers. 
Presented  in  unnumbered  forms,  widely  infecting 
the  popular  literature,  insinuated  by  methods  as  un- 
suspected as  they  are  prevalent,  the  utmost  watch- 
fulness is  needed  to  guard  against  this  evil.  Most 
earnestly  and  solemnly  do  we  warn  and  exhort  the 
pastors  of  Christ's  flock  so  to  indoctrinate  the  peo- 
ple of  their  charge  as  to  protect  them  against  the 
threatening  peril,  and  so  to  feed  His  sheep  and  His 
lambs  that  they  be  not  enticed  into  poisonous  pas- 
tures to  the  destruction  of  their  souls. 

That  extretne  individualism  which  in  matters 
pertaining  to  salvation,  shuts  up  each  man  to  him- 
self, presents  another  danger.  It  is,  indeed,  an 
error  to  merge  the  proper  individuality  of  every 
soul  in  its  corporate  relations  to  llie  15ody  of  Christ. 
But  the  necessity  of  membership  in  that  body  is, 
notwithstanding,  a  truth  of  such  vital  importance, 


and  the  inslitntions  of  Christ  which  involve  it  are 
so  positively  enforcud  in  Scripture  that  their  general 
neglect,  and  the  indifference  which  despises  them 
are  errors  more  general  and  alarming.  Let  it  be 
constantly  impressed  on  the  consciences  of  our  peo- 
ple that,  though  each  soul  is  individually  responsible 
to  God  for  grace  and  spiritual  help.  Heavenly 
grace  and  help  are,  nevertheless,  to  be  sought  by 
Divine  commandment,  in  that  communion  of  which 
the  Head  is   Christ. 

The  unscriptural  and  uncatliolic  pretensions  of 
the  Bishop  of  Rome,  as  in  times  past  so  now,  are  a 
fruitful  source  of  error  and  of  evil.  They  consti- 
tute to-day,  as  they  have  done  for  many  centuries, 
the  great  bar  to  the  restoration  of  the  unity  of 
Christendom.  We,  therefore,  urge  upon  our  breth- 
ren of  the  Clergy,  the  duty  of  teaching  their  peo- 
ple the  true  law  of  a  scriptural  and  catholic  unity, 
the  adorable  and  living  centre  of  whicli  is  none 
other  than  Jesus  Christ,  our  Lord  ;  tiie  inspiring 
source  of  which  is  His  true  Vicar,  the  Holy  Gho>t; 
and  the  visible  expression  of  which  is  the  "  Apos- 
tles'doctrine,  and  fellowship,  the  breaking  of  bread 
and  prayers." 

In  this  connexion  we  are  constrained  to  warn  you 
against  the  attempts  now  made,  to  disparage  our 
Anglican  Reformation.  These  attempts  challenge 
and  would  warrant  severer  terms  than  we  choose, 
in  this  Letter,  to  employ.  It  is  always  easy  to 
point  out  imperfections  in  the  characters  of  those 
whom  God  has  placed  in  eminent  positions  of  duty 
and  responsibility.  Inlidelity  has  cliosen  this  form 
of  attack  on  some  of  the  most  illustrious  names  re- 
corded for  our  example  in  Holy  Scriptures.  Such 
attacks,  we  believe,  will  only  add  fresh  lustre  to  the 
names  of  our  martyred  bishops  and  doctors,  and 
give  fresh  prominence  and  power  to  that  great  result 
of  our  Reformation,  the  maintenance  of  "the  Faith 
in  its  purity  and  integrity,  as  taught  in  tiie  Holy 
Scriptures,  held  by  the  Primitive  Church,  summed 
up  in  the  Creeds,  and  affirmed  by  the  undisputed 
General  Councils." 

Before  we  leave  this  topic,  we  must  also  warn 
you  against  confounding  mediajval  beliefs  or 
usages  with  those  of  earlier  and  purer  ages,  and 
against  their  practical  substitution  for  the  be- 
liefs and  usages  of  our  own  Reformed  Church. 
Especially  do  we  oondi mn  any  doctrine  of  the 
Holy  Euchaiisl  which  implies  that,  alter  consecra- 
tion the  prcpiT  nature  of  the  elements  of  bread  and 
wine  does  not  remain  ;  which  localizes  in  them  the 
bodily  presence  of  our    Lord  ;    which    allows    any 


2l2 


adoration  other  than  that  of  our  blessed  Lord  Him- 
self, "  who  rose  again  from  death,  and  took  again 
His  body,  with  flesh,  bones,  and  all  things  apper- 
taining to  the  perfection  of  man's  nature,  wherewith 
He  ascended  into  Heaven,  and  there  sitteth  until 
He  returns  to  judge  all  men  at  the  last  day ;"  which, 
in  any  way,  asserts  that  His  sacrifice  upon  the  cross 
was  not  "  a  full,  perfect,  and  sufficient  sacrifice,  obla- 
tion and  satisfaction  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world ;" 
and  which  would  add  to  our  Liturgy  ceremonies 
and  rites  designed  to  teach  all  or  any  of  these  tilings 
We  would  at  the  same  time,  deprecate  most  earnestly 
those  extravagancies  in  Ritualism,  recently  intro- 
duced, which  tend  to  a-similate  our  worship  to  that  of 
a  Church  not  only  alien,  but  hostile  to  our  own.  And 
we  must  also  urge  you  to  remember  that  the  rever- 
ent obedience  to  their  Bishops,  and  olher  chief  min- 
isters, promised  by  the  Clergy  at  their  ordination, 
would,  if  faithfully  rendered,  prevent  these  evils. 

With  thus  much  concerning  dangers  which  beset 
the  Faith,  we  turn  to  say  a  few  words  concerning 
those  which  bear  upon  the  life  of  Christ's  disciples. 
We  cannot,  indeed,  even  touch  upon  all  such  dan- 
gers, but  of  some  we  cannot  forbear  to  speak  in 
tones  of  admonition  and  alarm. 

Ours  are  times  of  increasing  worldliness,  luxury 
and  sensuality.     The  flesh  triumphs  over  the  spirit, 
in  the  modes  of  life  and  in    the  recognized  aims  of 
thousands  who   call    themselves    Christi:ins.      Your 
Bishops  cannot  with  too  much  of  plainness  and  solem- 
nity urge  the   Reverend    Clergy  to   be  faithful   in 
rebuke  and  warning  in  these  respects  ;  nor  can  they 
too  seriously  entreat  the  people  to  lay  such  exhorta- 
tion to  heart.     "  Now   the    works  of  the  flesh  are 
manifest,  which  are   these  :    Adultery,  fornication, 
uncleanness,  lasciviousness,  idolatry,  witchcraft,  ha- 
tred,  variance,  emuLitinns,  wrath,  strife,  seditions, 
heresies,  envyings,  murders,  drunkenness,  revellings  | 
and  such  like."    The  blessed  apostle  adds  :  "  of  tlie  i 
which  I  tell  you  before,  as  I  have  also  told  you  in  i 
time  past,  that  they  which  do  such  things  shall  not  | 
inhei'it  the  kingdom  of  God." 

In  former  Pastoral  Letters,  your  Bishops  have 
warned  you  concerning  worldly  amusements,  and 
of  the  tendency  of  many  forms  of  them  to  create 
a  distaste  for  pure,  simple  and  domestic  pleasures, 


innocent  enjoyments,  and  especially  for  the  stern 
duties  and  elevated  sympathies  of  a  holy  life*  But, 
in  our  day,  there  is  a  licentiousness  and  grossness 
in  theatrical  and  like  entertainments  which  would 
have  been  shocking  to  even  the  least  refined,  in  the 
days  of  our  fathers.  We  exhort  you  to  flee  these 
things,  and  above  all  to  separate  from  all  contact 
with  then-  pollution,  the  young  and  precious  souls 
for  whom  you  have  answered  in  holy  baptism. 

Nor  can  it  be  superfluous  to  say  that  moderation 
in  all  things  pertaining  to  personal  expense,  to 
dress,  and  to  manners,  is  required  of  all  Christians, 
as  examples  to  a  world  lying  in  the  wicked  One. 
On  these  things  the  Apostles  have  spoken,  and  the 
old  fathers  who  struggled  with  the  remains  of 
heathenism  in  their  converts,  and  it  is  humiliating 
to  note  that  what  they  rebuked  as  indecent  and 
shameful  in  "newly  baptized  Pagans,  is  hardly  less 
the  scandal  of  Christian  lands  in  our  own  day  and 
generation.  "  For  this  purpose  the  Son  of  God  was 
manifested  that  He  might  destroy  the  works  of  the 
devil."  It  is  in  vain  that  we  profess  a  pure  and 
primitive  Faith  and  multiply  our  sacrifices  of  praise 
and  thanksgiving,  in  the  Liturgic  forms  of  apostles 
and  martyrs,  unless  with  clean  hearts  and  hands,  and 
with  bodies  unpolluted,  we  are  enabled  to  worship 
God  in  spirit  and  in  truth.  Suffer,  therefore, brethren 
tliese  words  of  exhortation  to  practical  godliness. 
"The  end  of  all  tilings  is  at  hand:  be  sober  and 
watch  unto  prayer."  Priiy  and  strive  for  the  "  peace 
of  Jerusalem."  "  Let  all  bitterness,  and  wrath, 
and  anger,  and  clamour,  and  evil  speaking  be  put 
away  from  you,  with  all  malice,"  that  as  there  is  "one 
Lord,  one  Faith,  one  Baptism,  one  God  and  Father 
of  us  all,"  so  we  may  henceforth  be  of  one  heart 
and  one  soul,  united  in  one  holy  bond  of  Truth  and 
Peace,  of  b'aith  and  Charity,  and  with  one  mind  and 
one  mouth  glorify  God  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost.  It  remains  for  us  to  add  our  paternal 
benediction  :  The  God  of  peace  who  brought  again 
from  the  dead  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  great 
Shepherd  of  the  sheep,  through  the  blood  of  the 
everlasting  covenant,  make  you  perfect  in  every 
good  work  to  do  His  will,  working  in  you  that 
which  is  well  pleasing  in  His  sight,  through  Jesus 
Christ,  to  Whom  be  glory  forever  and  ever. 

Amen. 


213 


A  DIGEST  OF  THE  EESOLUTIONS 

Passed  by  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  of  the  General  Convention  of  1868 

and  of  the  Legislation  concurred  in  by  the  House  of  Bishops. 


FIRST   DAT. 

That  the  House  proceed  to  the  election  of  a  President. 

That  balloting  bt-  dispen^^ed  with. 

That  the  House  proceed  lo  the  election  of  a  Secretary. 

That  when  the  House  adjourns,  it  be  to  meet  in  Trinity  Chapel,  Octo- 
ber 8,  at  10  A.  M. 

That  the  daily  sessious  be  from  10  a.  m.  to  4  p.  m. 

That  a  coniaiitt''e  wait  upon  *he  House  of  Bishops,  to  inform  them  of 
the  organization  of  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  and  its 
readinesf*  to  proceed  to  *iusiness. 

That  the  Kules  of  Order  of  the  last  General  ConTenti-n  be  adopted  aa 
the  rules  of  this  House  until  others  are  provided. 

That  the  President  appoint  the  standing  commiftees. 

That  the  House  confirm  the  appointment  of  the  assistant  Secretary. 

That  the  House  adjourn. 

SECOND  day. 

That  the  Minutes  be  approved 

That  the  petition  of  the  Diocese  of  Nebraska  for  admission  into  union 
with  the  Convention,  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Canons. 

That  the  Memorial  of  the  Diocese  of  Wisconsin  (concerning  Article  V. 
of  the  Constitution)  be  re. erred  to  the  Committee  on  Canons. 

That  the  Memorial  from  the  Diocese  of  ilarylaud  (concerning  perma- 
nent S,v  nodical  or  Conventional  union  of  dioceses,  and  the  erection 
of  Provincial  Courts  of  Appeal)  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Canons. 

That  the  Resolutions  of  the  Diocese  of  New  York  (concerning  the  erec_ 
tion  of  two  new  dioceses  within  the  limits  of  the  present  diocese)' 
be  referted  to  the  Committee  on  New  Dioceses. 

That  the  Memorial  from  the  Diocese  of  New  York  (concerning  the  pas- 
sage of  a  canon  authorizing  the  formation  of  a  Federate  Council)  be 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  Cauous. 

That  the  paper  concerning  the  election  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  C.  F.  Robertson 
to  the  Episcopate  of  Missouri,  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Consecration  of  Bishops. 

That  the  memorial  from  the  Diocese  of  Tennessee  (on  the  extent  and 
formation  of  dioceses)  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Canons. 

That  the  memorial  from  the  Diocese  of  Illinois  (concerning  the  repeal 
of  Article  V.  of  the  Constitution)  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Canons. 

That  the  petition  from  the  Diocese  of  Maryland  {concerning  the  divis- 
ion of  the  diocese)  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  New  Dioceses. 

That  the  memorial  and  resolution  from  the  Diocese  of  North  Carolina 
(concerning  the  division  of  dioceses)  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Canons. 

That  the  preamble  and  resolution  from  the  Conveution  of  the  Diocese 
of  Georgia  (concerning  the  change  of  the  name  of  the  "  convention" 
to  "  council'" )  be  referreii  to  the  Committee  on  Canons. 

That  the  preamble  and  resolution  from  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese 
ot  Texas  (concerning  the  division  of  dioceses)  be  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Canons. 

That  clergymen  and  others  be  admitted  to  the  sittings  of  this  House. 

That  the  list  of  members,  standing  committees,  and  the  rnles  of  order 
be  printed  for  use  of  the  House. 

That  the  House  take  a  rttcess  daily  at  1  p.  m. 

That  1,500  copies  of  the  sermon  pre^iched  at  the  opening  of  the  Con- 
Vfntion,  by  the  Bishop  of  Delaware,  be  printed. 

That  (the  House  of  Bishops  concurring)  a  joint  committee  be  appoint- 
ed to  consider  the  proprit^tv  of  selecting  another  place  of  meeting 
for  the  daily  set-sions  of  the  House.  (Concurred  in  by  the  House  of 
Bishops,  virie  Message  No  2.) 

That  this  House  plate  on  record  its  grateful  sense  of  the  eminent  and 
lon^continu  ed  Services  to  the  Church,  cf  four  venerable  deputies 
from  the  Diocese  of  Maryland,  deceased  since  last  General  Conven- 
tion, viz.:  Ezekiel  F.  Chambers.  LL.  D.,  Rev.  Henry  M,  Mason,  D.  D., 
Hugh  Dave\  Evans,  LL.  D.,  and  John  Henry  Alexander,  Lb.  D. 

That  the  House  place  upon  its  records  the  eKpre.s^ion  of  its  giateful 
recollection  of  the  high  Christian  character  and  v-tluable  services  in 
behalf  uf  the  Church,  of  Washington  Hunt,  LL.  D.,  deceased  since 
the  last  General  Conveution. 

That  this  Houf^e  has  heard  with  deep  regret,  of  the  death  of  the  most 
Rev.  Dr.  Fulford,  Bishop  of  Montreal  and  Metropolitan  of  Canada  ; 
and  that  this  House  communicates  to  the  House  of  Bishops,  its  desire 
to  join  with  them  in  such  expressions  of  regard  for  the  departed 
Bishop,  and  of  respect  for  his  memory,  as  they  may  see  fit  to  pre- 
pare. (Concurred  in,  vide  message  from  the  House  of  Bishops,  No. 
68  ) 
That  this  House  place  upon  its  records,  the  expression  of  its  deep  sor- 
row at  the  death  of  the  Kev.  Francis  Lister  Hawks,  D.  D.,  LL.  D., 
Historiographer  of  the  American  Church,  and  for  many  years  a  faith- 
ful, most  laboriou.-*,  and  valuable  member  of  this  body. 
That  the  House  adjourn. 

THIRD    DAY. 

That  the  Minutes  be  approved. 

That  the  Treasurer's  summary  and  report  in  full  be  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Expenses. 

That  (various  resolutions,  amendments,  and  substitutes  vouching)  the 
whole  matter  of  (the  report  the  Committee  on  New  Dioceses  recom- 
mending— the  House  of  Bishops  concurring)  the  admission  of  the 
Diocese  of  Nebraska  into  full  canonical  union  with  tUe  Convention  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  be  laid  on 
the  table. 


That  the  motion  to  refer  the  whole  matter  concerning  the  admission  of 
the  Diocese  of  Nebraska  to  a  special  committee,  be  laid  on  the   table. 

That  the  House  concur  in  the  action  of  rhe  House  of  Bishops  as 
announced  in  Message  No.  3,  to  wit;  "  that  the  Diocese  of  Nebraska 
be,  and  the  same  is,  hereby  admitted  into  union  with  the  General. 
Convention  of  the  Church  in  the  United  States." 

That  the  Uou&e  adjourn. 

FoDRTH  Day. 

That  the  Jliuutes  be  approved. 

That  the  memorial  of  the  Diocese  of  Pennsylvania  (concerning  the  Kx- 
aminatiou  of  Candidates  for  Holy  Orders)  be  referred  to  the  Commit- 
tee on  Canons. 

That  the  Memorial  from  the  Diocese  ef  Maryland  (concerning  the  divi- 
sion of  the  diucese)  be  referred  to  the  Committee  '>n  New  Dioceses. 

That  the  Memorial  of  Sundry  Clergy  and  Laity  (concerning  Section  6, 
Canon  12,  Title  I.)  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Canons. 

That  the  Memorial  of  sundry  Clergy  and  Laity  (asking  repeal  of  Canon 
11   Title  I.)  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Canons. 

That  the  resolution  of  inquiry  respecting  the  want  of  music  at  Morning 
Prayer,  be  laid  on  the  table. 

That  a  proposed  amendment  of  Section  2,  Canon  12,  Title  II—*'  Regu- 
lations respecting  the  Laity"— be  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Canons.  .     .^. 

That  the  Petition  from  the  Diocese  of  Vermont  (concerning  the  copviug 
of  the  late  Bishop  Burgess's  List  of  Ordinatious  in  the  American 
Church)  and  those  of  a  similar  natur«  from  the  Dioceses  of  Maine, 
Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island  and  New  Hampshire,  be  referred  to  a 
Special  Committee  of  Three— the  Rev.  Drs  Beardsley  and  Clemson, 
and  Judge  Slieffey. 

That  a  proposed  alteration  o(  Section  14,  Canon  13,  Title  I.  (concern- 
ing the  Use  of  Forms  of  Prayer  for  "  Extraordinary  Occasions*')  and 
au"inquiry  whether  any  further  legislation  is  necessary  to  make 
Canon  20.  Title  I.  consistent  with  the  Canon  in  question,  and  the 
definition  of  the  phrase  "  Extraordinary  Occasions,"  he  referred  to 
the  Committee  on  Cauous. 

That  a  proposed  canon  on  the  Consecration  on  Churches,  and  an 
amendment  thereto,  be  referred  to  the  Committes  on  Canons. 

That  the  Memorial  from  the  Diocese  of  Illinois  (concerning  the  Provin- 
cial System  and  the  change  of  name  from  '■  convention"'  to  "coun- 
cil") be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Canons- 

That  the  Request  of  the  Committee  on  Cauons  ta  be  discharged  from 
further  consideration  of  the  Memorial  from  the  Diocese  of  Georgia, 
(concerning  change  of  nomenclature  of  various  legislative  bodies  of 
the  Church)  be  granted. 

That  the  resolution  offered  by  Mr.  S.  B.  Ruggles  of  New  York  (concern- 
ing the  appointment  of  a  ''  Stan  ling  Committee  ou  the  Foreign  Rela- 
tioi  s  of  the  I'hurch,"  to  consiaer  and  report  on  any  proposition  or 
subject  connected  with  intercommunion  or  Synodical  Union  with  any 
other  portion  of  the  Church  Catholic)  be  made  the  order  of  the  day 
for  Wednesday,  October  14. 

That  a  proposed  amendment  of  Canon  20,  Title  I.  (concerning  the  use 
of  selections  from  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  instead  of  the  pre- 
scribed forms  of  Morning  and  Evening  Prayer)  be  referred  to  the 
Committee  ou  Canons. 

That  a  resolution  of  inquiry  (concerning  a  grammatical  inaccuracy  lu 
the  ^'Invocation"  in  the  otfice  for  the  Holy  Communion)  be  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  the  Prayer  Book. 

That  Clerical  representatives  oi  our  Church  in  foreign  countries  now  in 
this  city  be  entitled  to  seats  on  the  floor  of  this  House. 

That  a  resolution  of  inquiry,  whether  any  change  is  required  in  Section 
5,  Canon  13,  Title  I  (concerning  the  election  of  Assistant  Bishops)^ 
be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Canons. 

That  a  resolution  proposing  alterations  in  Paragraph  5,  Section  7,  ("an- 
on  13,  Title  I.  (concerning  the  translation  of  Missionary  Bishops) 
be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Canons. 

That  a  resolution  of  inquiry  as  to  rhe  expediency  of  amending  Canons 
9  and  10  of  Title  I.  (so  as  to  remove  tr.erefrom  the  iliscrimiuations 
made  in  favor  of  Ministers  ordained  by  Bishops  not  in  ccmmuuiou 
with  this  Church,  and  against  Ministers  onhtined  in  foreign  lountries 
by  Bishops  tn  communion  with  the  Church  where  .such  members  de- 
sire admission  to  our  Church)  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Canons. 

That  a  resolution  of  inquiry  as  to  the  third  Article  of  the  constitution 
of  the  Boaid  of  Missions  {respecting  ambiguity  of  expi-essiou  therein) 
be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Domestic  and  Foreign  Missionary 
Society. 
That  the  House  proceed  to  ballot,  on  Monday,  October  12,    for  a  com- 
mittee on  the  part  of  the  House  to  nominate  a  Board  of  Missions. 
That  a  Preamble  and  resolution  (requesting   the  Houst;  of  Bishops   to 
prepare  a  short  service  for  Morning  and  Evening  use  ou  other  days 
than  Sundays)  be  laid  on  the  table. 
That  when  the  hour  of  recess  arrives  the  House  adjourn. 

Fifth  Day, 

That  the  Minutes  be  approved. 

That,  the  lloutfe  of  Bishops  concurring,  the  Convention  ratify  the  di- 
vision of  the  Diocese  Of  Marj  laud  into  two  dioceses — such  division  to 
take  effect  on  the  calling  of  a  Convention  for  the  purpofe  by  the  Wish- 
op  or  ecclesiastical  authority  of  the  dioce.se— and  recognizes  the 
union  with  the  Oenei'al  Convention  of  the  New  Diocese.  (Concurred 
in.     yid«  Message  Uouse  of  Bishops  No.  G)- 


214 


That  accommodations  be  provided  for  the  Reporters  in  the  middle  aisle 
of  the  church. 

That  the  whole  matter  (resolutions  and  amendmf-nts  concerning)  re- 
moval to  the  Churcti  of  the  Transfitju ration,  be  referred  to  the  Joint 
Committee  appointed  to  consider  the  subject  of  a  change  of  place, 
with  instructions  to  report  as  soon  as  practicable. 

That  the  House  proceed  to  the  election,  on  its  part,  of  a  Joint  Commit- 
tee to  nominate  a  Board  ot  Missions. 

That    balloting  be  dispensed  with,  and  the  Rev.  Drs.  Paddock,  Hunt 
ingtou.  Pierce,  and  Mes,srs.  L.  B.  Otis,  W.  H.  Battle,  LL.  D.,  andG' 
C.  Mc\V'h. liter,  be  elected  as   members  on  the  part  of  this  House  of 
said  Joint  Committee. 

That  the  meaiorial  fiom  the  Diocese  of  Xew  Jersey  (concerning  Clerical 
Su|ipoit),  be  referred  to  a  special  committee  of  five  Laymen,  (viz,, 
J.  II  Thompson  iM.  D.,  S.  li.  Kugglt-s,  LL.  D.,  J.  W.  Van  Nostrand, 
G  C.  Shattuck,  M.  D.,  and  B.  J.  Barbour). 

That  the  re>oiution,  adopted  by  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese  of  New 
Yurk  (asking  a  permissive  Canon  authorizing  a  federate  council  of 
the  dioceses  in  Xew  York),  be  referreil  to  the  Committee  on  Canons. 

That  Mr.  \Villi;im  Welsh  be  added  to  the  Joint  Committee  tonomintte 
a  Board  ot  Missions. 

That  sundry  Memorials  (on  securing  uniformity  in  public  worship),  to- 
gether with  a  scheme  of  Canon — ■■  Of  the  Manner  of  Conducting  Di- 
vine Worship"  be  referred  to  tlie  Committee  on  Canons. 

That  the  order  of  business  be  suspended  to  receive  report  of  Joint  Com 
mitiee  on  Change  of  Place. 

That  tlie  resolutions  accompanying  the  above  report  (I.  That  the 
House  of  Bishops  concuiriug— alter  recess  to-morrow — this  House 
meet  for  the  future  sessions  at  the  Church  of  the  Transfiguration. 
II.  Thankiug  Hector,  Wardens,  aud  Vestry,  of  Trinity  Church,  and 
also  the  Committee  of  Arrangements.  III.  Appointing  Mr.  William 
Welsh  aud  Uev.  Dr.  Abercrombie  Committee  of  Arrangements,  be 
adopted. 

That  the  report  «^>f  the  Committee  on  Canons  (proposing  certain  amend- 
ments to  Article  V.  of  the  constitution),  be  printed  and  made  the 
Order  of  the  Day  for  Thursday,  October  15. 

That  leave  ol  absence  be  granted  to  several  Clerical  and  Lav  Deputies. 

That  the  Chair  be  empowered  to  appoint  an  additional  member  of  the 
Committee  on  Canons. 

That  a  resolution  (concerning  the  subject  of  departure  from  the  estab- 
lished usages  of  the  Church  by  defect),  be  referred  to  the  Committee 
on  Canons. 

That— the  House  of  Bishops  concurring — a  Joint  Committee  of  Bishops, 
Presbyters  and  Laymen,  in  equal  number,  be  appointed  as  an  organ 
of  communication  with  other  (tranches  of  the  Churi;h  and  with  the 
different  Christian  bodies  desiring  iufoi  mation  or  conference,  and  en- 
titled ''  The  Commission  of  the  Protestant  Epi-^copal  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America  on  Church  Unity,"  non-concurred  in  vide 
message  No.  0,  Committee  of  Conference  requested  vic/e  message  IV, 
H.  D.,  No.  10.  Committee  appointed  on  the  partot  the  House  of  Bish- 
ops r((^f  message  H.  B.,  No.  12.  Resolution  accompanying  lieport 
of  Committee  of  Conference,  adopted  15th  Day.  Bishops  ol  Ohio, 
Md..  N.  Car.,  K.  Island,  and  W.  N.  York  appointed  members  of  the 
Committee — i-ide  message  II.  B.  84. 

That  certain  resolutions  inquiring  respecting  the  stereotype  plates  of 
the  standard  Book  ol  Common  Prajer  be  referred  to  the  Committee 
on  the  Pra>er  Book. 

That  the  Houte  approve  of  the  Testimonials  of  the  Kev.  Dr  Robertson, 
Bishop  elect  of  Missouri,  and  consent  to  his  consecration. 

That  the  House  proceed  to  sign  the  proper  certificate  to  be  presented 
to  the  House  of  Bishops. 

That  the  House  adjourn. 

SIXTH     DAT. 

That  the  minutes  be  approved. 

That  the  Secretary  transmit  to  the  House  of  Bishops  the  testimonials  of 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Robertson — said  testimonial  X.  having  been  signed  by  a 
Constitutional  m.ijority  of  both  Orders  of  the  House. 

That  tbe  proposed  amendment  of  section  6,  Canoo  12,  Title,  reported 
by  the  Committee  on  Canons,  be  printed,  and  made  the  order  of 
the  day  for  i'ridav,  Oct.  16. 

That  the  proposed  amendment  of  tbe  title  of  Canon  11,  Title  I,  report- 
ed by  the  Committee  on  Canons,  be  made  the  order  of  the  day  for 
Friday,  Oct.  16,  alter  the  preceding  order. 

That,  the  House  of  Bishops  concurring,  this  Convention  ratify  the  ac- 
tion of  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese  of  New  York  in  the  erection  of  a 
new  diocese,  (Long  Island)  to  take  effect  Nov.  15.  Concurred  in 
fiiJe  mes.-age  H.  B  ,  No.  9. 

That,  the  House  of  Bishops  concurring,  the  Convention  i-atify  the  action 
of  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese  of  New  York  in  the  erection  of  a 
new  diocese,  (Northern  New  York),  to  take  effect  Nov.  15. 

That  the  Rev.  William  C.  Williams  be  added  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Dome.-tic  and  Foreign  Missionary  Society. 

That  a  chair  be  provided  for  the  Bishop  of  Ontario,  at  the  right  hand 
of  the  President. 

That  a  resolution  (inquiring  what  part  of  the  Morning  aud  Evening 
Prayers  may  be  read  by  lay-readers,  and  suggesting  a  canon  placing 
them  under  proper  discipline)  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Can- 
ons. 

That  the  members  of  the  House  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies,  in  leav- 
ing Tiinity  Chapel,  express  and  record  their  heariy  thanks  to  the 
Vestry  of  Trinity  Church,  the  Committee  of  arrangements,  and  es- 
pecially to  tbe  Rev  Dr.  Height. 

That  a  resolution  (cooc-rning  the  plan  for  the  Morning  Service  pre 
sented  in  the  Rules  of  Order)  be  laid  on  the  table. 

That  Message  No.  6,  (concernmg  the  division  of  the  Diocese  of  Western 
New  York),  with  the  accompanying  documents,  be  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  New  Dioceses. 

That  the  vote  whereby  the  consideration  of  Canon  12,  Title  I.  was  made 
the  order  of  the  day  for  Friday.  Oct.  16,  be  reconsidered. 


That  the  House  take  up  the  said  report  for  consideration. 
That  the  said  report  be  made  the  order  of  the  day  for  Wednesday,  Oc- 
tober 14. 
That  the  House  adjourn. 

SEVENTH    DAY. 

That  the  Minutes  be  approved. 

That  the  Memorial  of  the  Wardens  and  Vestry  of  the  Church  of  the 

Holy  Trinity,  New  York,  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Canons. 
That  the  House  proceed  to  the  election  of  a  Treasurer. 
Thnt  balloting  be  dispensed  with,  aud  Mr.  Herman  Cope  be  elected. 
That  a  resolution  and   amendaient   (suggesting   an  amendment   to  the 

Constitution,  or  a  declaratory  canon  setting  forth  certain  principles 

touching  the  Kpi-copate)  be  laid  on  the  table. 
That  a  memorial  from  certain  members  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 

Church  in  the  Diocese  of  New  Jersey,  be  referred  to  the  Committee 

on  Canons. 
That  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  New  Dioceses  be  recommitted. 
Ti  at  Message  No.  8  Irom  the   House  of  Bishops  (amending  Section  2, 

Canon  10,  Title  I.),  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Canons. 
That  a  resolution  (inquiring   whether  the  addition  of  the  words  "or 

by  the  Bishop  himself  of  some  other  Diocese."    be  not  required  in 

Article  IV,  of  the  Constitution)  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on 

Canons. 
That  the  whole  matter  (concerning   the  change  of  designation  of  the 

General  Convention)  be  indefinitely  postponed. 
That  a  committee  of  conference  on  the  part  of  this  House,  be  appoint 

ed  on  Message  No.  11  from  the  House  of  bishops. 
That  this  committee  consist  of  three  clergymen  and  three  laymen. 
That  the  members  of  the  corporations  of  the  Church  of  the  Transfig- 
uration and  Trinity  Church,  Bte  admitted  to  seats  on  the  floor  of  the 

House. 
That  the  communication  from  the  Trustees  of  the  General  Theological 

Seminary,  and  their  Triennial  Report  be  referred  to  the   Committee 

on  the  General  Theological  Seminary 
That — the  House  of   Bishops   concurring — a  joint  committee  he   ap- 
pointed to  consider  the  canons  relating  to  admission  to  tbe  Ministry, 

said  committee  on  the  part  of  this  House  being  the  Committee  on 

Canons, 
TI  at  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Canons  (concerning  Canon  12, 

Title  1.)  be  again  made  the  order  of  the  day  for  Friday,  October  16. 
That  the  House  adjourn. 

EIQETH  DAY. 
That  the  Minutes  be  approved. 
That  the  preamble  atd  r*-solution  reported  by  the  Committee  on  New 

Dioceses,  (ratifying  the  erection  of  »  new  diocese  within  the  limits  of 

the  Diocese  of  Western  New  York),  be  adopted. 
That  tbe  House  concur  in  Message  No    8  from  the  House  of  Bishops 

(amending  Section  2,  Canon  X.,  Title  I.)  so  as  to  read,  '*  And  if  such 

foreign  clergyman  be  a  Deacon,  he  shall  reside  in  this  country  at  least 

oue  >ear,  and  shall  obtain  in  this  country  the  requisite  testimonials 

of  character,  before  he  be  ordained  a  Priest." 
That  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Canons,  proposing  a  canon  instead 

of  Section  5,  Canon  13,  Title    I    (on  assistant  Bishops)  be  laid  on 

the  table  for  future  consideration. 
That  a  canon  propo.^ed  by  the  Committee  on  Canons  (concerning  the 

consecration  of  churches)  be  laid  on  the  table,  and  ordered  to  be 

printed  for  the  use  of  the  House. 
That   the  report  from  the  committee  appointed  at  the  last   General 

Convention,  on  the  Provincial  System,  be  referred  to  a  committee  of 

five  to  report  to  this  Convention. 
That  hereafter  the  daily  sessions  continue  from  10  a.  m.  to  3  p.  m., 

without  recess. 
That  a  resolution  (inquiring  into  the  expediency  of  amending  Canon 

5,  Title  3)  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Canons. 
That  the  House  proceed  to  the  consideration  of  the  order  of  the  day. 
That  the  House  adjourn. 

NINTH    DAY. 

That  the  Minutes  be  approved. 

That  a  resolution  proposing  an  amendment  to  Article  2  of  the  Consti- 
tution (reducing  the  number  of  deputies  to  General  Convention)  be 
laid  on  the  table. 

That  a  i-esolution  (proposing  amendments  and  additions  to  Canon  XI., 
Title  I  )  be  leferred  to  the  Committee  on  Canons. 

That  a  resolution  (referring  to  the  Committee  on  the  Prayer  Book,  the 
inquiry  as  to  the  expediency  of  eras^ing  from  the  Ordin«I  the  words, 
"Whose  sins  thou  dost  forgive  they  are  forgiven,  and  whose  sina 
thou  dost  retain,  they  are  retained,"  in  the  commission  given  to  a 
Presbyter  by  a  Bishop),  be  laid  on  the  table. 

That  the  Committee  on  Canons  enquire  into  the  expediency  of  strik- 
ing out  the  words  "  of  this  Church,"  after  the  words  Presiaing  Bish- 
op, in  Section  3  of  Canon  9,  Title  II. 

That — the  House  of  Bishops  concurring — in  Article  3  of  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  Board  of  Missions,  for  the  words  "  four  in  number  from 
each  diocese,"  etc.,  there  be  substituted  the  words,  "  at  least  equal 
in  number  to  four  times  the  number  of  dioceses  in  union  with  the 
General  Convention."     Concurred  in,  vide  Message  H.  B.,  No.  14. 

That  the  order  of  the  day  be  postponed,  to  take  up  unfinished  busi- 
ness, to  wit :  proposed  amendments  to  Article  V.  of  the  Constitu- 
tion. 

That  speakers  be  limited  to  five  minutes,  and  that  no  one  have  liberty 
to  speak  twice  on  the  question  under  consideration. 

That  the  amendments  to  Article  V.  of  the  Constitution,  reported  by 
the  Committee  on  Canons,  with  certain  verbal  changes,  be  adopted. 
Non-concurred  in,  vi-'e  Message  H.  B  ,  No.  26  Ctmniittee  of  con- 
ference appointed,  and  the  resolutions  reported  by  said  committee 
concurred  in  by  H.  D.  and  H.  B.,  vide  Message  H.  D.  No.  G5,  and 
Message  H.  B.  No  60. 

That  the  House  adjourn 


215 


TBNTH  DAT. 

That  the  Minates  be  approved. 

That  the  whole  subject  of  ndmission  to  the  sessions  of  this  House,  te 
referred  to  the  Cnmuiittee  on  ArraDgements,  witti  power. 

That  leave  of  absence  be  granted  to  certain  deputies  applying  therefor. 

That  applications  for  leave  of  absence  during  the  remainder  of  the 
session,  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Elections,  with  power. 

That,  the  House  of  Bishops  coocurriug,  Canon  9,  Title  I.,  be  amended 
by  substituting,  in  the  12th  line,  the  words,  *'  one  year,"  instead 
of  "  six  months."     Non-concurred  in,  vide  Message  H    B  ,  No  21 

That  the  Committee  ou  Canons  be  discharged  from  further  considera- 
tion of  a  proposed  amendment  of  Section  7,  Canon  13,  Tide  I.  (to 
the  effect  that  a  domestic  missionary  Bishop  chonld  become,  of 
course,  the  Bishop  of  a  diocese  organized  within  his  jurisdiction). 

That  the  resolution  accompanying  the  report  of  the  Committee  ou  the 
State  of  the  Church  {transmitting  to  the  House  of  Bishops  the  view 
of  the  state  of  the  Church,  presented  by  said  committee,  asking  its 
praiiers  and  blessings,  and  requesting  a  pastoril  letter),  be  adopted. 

That  the  documents  accompanying  the  report  of  the  Committee  on 
the  State  of  the  Church,  be  temporarily  placed  in  the  hands  of  the 
Committie  on  Christian  Education. 

That  certain  resolutions  (concerning-  the  establishment  of  Christian 
schools,  parochial  and  diocesan ),  and  a  further  resolution  (advocating 
1,  training-house  for  female  teachers,  and  a  sisterhood  of  such  in- 
structors} be   referred  to  the  Committee  ou  f'hristian  EducatioD. 

That  the  canon  prorosed  by  the  Committee  on  *'anons,  in  connection 
with  their  report  on  Article  V  of  the  Constitution,  with  certain 
amendments,  be  adopted,  to  become  operative  on  the  adoption  of  the 
proposed  amendment  to  the  6th  Article  of  the  Constitution.  Vi'le 
acti'in  of  House  of  Bishops  concerning  the  same  as  noted  above,  in 
connection  with  the  action  of  this  House  on  sail  amondments  to 
Article  V.,  ninth  day. 

That  a  resolution  (concerning  the  establishment  of  missionary  organ- 
izations under  the  charge  of  missionary  Bishops,  within  the  limits  of 
organized  dioceses',  when  request  therefor  is  made  by  the  ecclesiasti- 
cal authority )   be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  t.'auons. 

That  no  member  of  the  House  be  allowed  to  speak  more  than  once, 
nor  for  a  longer  time  than  ten  minutes,  during  the  remainder  of  the 
session,  with  the  exception  of  allowing  chairmen  of  committees,  and 
those  who  introduce  resolutions,  ten  minutes  in  which  to  close  the 
debate. 

That — the  House  of  Bishops  concurring — Canon  12,  Section  VI.,  clause 
[li],  of  Title  I.,  be  amended  so  as  to  read  as  follows:  "If  there  be 
but  one  church  or  congregation  within  the  limits  of  such  village, 
town,  township,  borough,  city,  or  such  division  of  a  city  or  town,  as 
herein  provided,  the  same  shall  be  deemed  the  parochial  cure  of  the 
minister  having  charge  thereof  If  there  be  two  or  more  churches 
or  congregations  therein,  it  shall  be  deemed  the  cure  of  the  ministers 
thereof,  and  the  assent  of  a  majority  of  such  ministers  shall  be  nec- 
essary. But  nothing  in  this  can"n  shall  be  construed  to  prevent 
any  clergyman  of  this  Church  from  officiating  in  any  parish  church, 
or  in  any  place  of  public  worship  used  by  any  congregation  of  this 
Church,  with  the  consent  of  the  clergyman  in  charge  of  such  con- 
gregation, or  in  his  absence,  of  the  churchwardens  and  vestrymen  or 
trustees  of  such  congregation,  or  of  a  majority  of  them."  Con- 
curred in,  vide  Message  H.  B.,  No.  17. 

That  a  proposed  amendiiient  of  clause  [1],  Section  VI.,  of  Canon  12,  of 
Title  I.,  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Canons. 

That  a  proposed  substitute  for  the  above  proposed  amendment  be  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  Canons. 

That  a  further  resolution  (of  inquiry  as  to  the  expediency  of  amending 
the  4th  line  of  clause  [1],  Section  VI.,  Canon  12,  Title  I.)  be  referred 
to  the  same  Committee. 

That  a  further  proposed  amendment  to  the  same  be  referred  to  the 
same  committee. 

That  the  House  proceed  to  the  consideration  of  the  resolution  accom- 
panying the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Canons  (concerning  the  con- 
spcrrttion  of  churches). 

That  thf  question  on  the  adoption  of  the  canon,  he  taken  by  the  sep- 
arate sections  thereof 

That  the  vote  on  the  proposed  canon  be  taken  before  the  adjournment. 

That  the  proposed  canon  and  the  amendments  offered  therefor,  be  re- 
committed. 

That  the  House  adjourn. 

ELEVENTH   DAT. 

That  the  Minutes  be  approved. 

Tiiat  the  Committee  on  Canons  be  discharged  from  further  considera^ 
tion  of  a  proposed  amendment  of  Section  2,  Canon  12,  Title  I.  (mak- 
ing a  communicant  removing  from  one  parish  to  another,  amenable 
to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  rector  of  the  parish  to  which  he  removes). 

That  the  Commit'ee  on  Canons  be  discharged  from  further  considera- 
tion of  a  resolution  of  inquiry  and  direction  (touching  the  duties  and 
discipline  of  lay-reauers)- 

That  the  same  committee  be  discharged  from  further  consideration  of  a 
proposed  amendment  of  Canon  20,  Title  I.  (giving  to  Bishops  power 
to  sanction  forms  of  service  selected  from  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  instead  of  the  prescribed  Morning  and  Evening  Prayer). 

That  the  Committee  on  the  Prayer  Book  be  discharged  froni  further 
consideration  of  the  alleged  grammatical  inaccuracy  in  the  Invocation 
in  the  Office  for  the  Holy  Communion. 

That— the  House  of  Bishops  concurring — a  Joint  Committee  of  three 
members  on  the  part  of  this  House,  be  appointed  to  sit  during  the 
recess,  to  examine  and  correct;  the  plates  of  the  St^indard  Prayer 
Book,  and  issue  a  new  edition  thereof.  Concurred  iu  by  House  of 
Bishops,  vide  Message  53.  Committee  ou  the  part  of  the  House  of 
Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies.  Rev.  Drs.  Haight.  T.  \V.  Coit,  and  Howe  ; 
Custodian  of  Standard  Prayer  Book,  Rev.  Dr.  Ilaight. 

That — the  House  of  Bishops  concurring — the  Registrar  be  authorized  to 

^  furnish  a  copy  of  the_  tlhronological  ^Catalogue_,of  Ordinations,  pre- 


pared by  Bishop  Burgees,  to  any  diocese  or  dioceses,  the  expense  to  be 
borne  by  the  applicants.     Concurred  in,  vide  Messnge  H.  B.,  No.  42 

That — the  House  of  Bishops  concurring— a  (.'omniissicn  on  Arnive 
be  created,  co&isting  of  two  Bishops,  two  presbyters,  and  two  lay- 
men. Finally  concurred  in.  with  verbal  change,  vide  Mess.  H  B.  No. 
42,  and  Message  H  D.  No.  51.  Commission  on  Archives,  the  Bish- 
fps  of  New  Jersey  and  Pennsylvania,  tlie  Rev.  Drs.  Thos.  W.  Coit 
and  E.  E.  Beardsley,  Messrs.  R.  C.  Winthrop,  LL.  D  ,  and  H.  Fi»h, 
LL.  D. 

That— the  House  of  Bishops  concurring — a  resolution  inserting  an  ad- 
ditional cycle,  and  omitting  one  already  expired,  be  made  known  to 
the  convention  of  every  diocese,  agreeably  to  the  VIIl.  Arti-'le  of  the 
Constitution.  Concurred  in,  •ivV/f' Message  H.  ii.  No.  23  ;  vide  9.]so 
pp.  92,  93  Journal  General  Convention,  18t)5. 

That  a  re.solution  (concerning  changes  in  the  ^Metrical  Psalms  aud 
Hymns)  be  referred  to  the  ('ommittee  on  the  Prayer  Book. 

That  a  resolution  (concerning  clxaiiges  iu  punctuation  in  the  Apostles' 
and  Nicene  Creeds)  be  laid  on  the  table. 

That  a  resolution  (advocating  the  insertion  of  the  word  "  Holy"  before 
the  words  "  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church,"  iu  the  Nicene  Creed,) 
be  laid  on  the  table. 

That  a  resolution  (affirming  the  inexpediency  of  making  any  change  in 
the  last  Standard  Prayer  Book)  be  laid  on  the  table,  to  be  called  up 
the  following  Wednesday,  Oct.  21. 

That  a  resolution  {concerning  an  acccurate  translation  of  the  original 
Greek  of  the  Nicene  Creed)  be  laid  on  the  table. 

That  a  communication  from  the  Board  of  Missions,  with  the  accom- 
panying reports  and  summaries,  be  refeiTed  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Domestic 'and  Foreign  Missionary  Society. 

That  a  resolution  (of  inquiry  as  to  the  expediency  of  changes  in  the 
canons  and  in  the  constitution  qf  the  Domestic  and  Foreijiu  Mission- 
ary Society,  changing  the  alteration  of  the  title  of  the  Board  of  Mis- 
sions, and  giving  to  it  high  effitiency.)  be  referred  toacommittee  con- 
sisting of  the  Committee  on  Canons  and  the  Committee  on  the  Do- 
mestic and  Foreign  Missionary  Society. 

That  the  Secretary  take  measures  to  obtain  further  raturus  from  the 
Dioceses,  as  required  by  Canon  lo,  Title  I. 

That  the  Secretary  record  the  various  places  n'tmed  for  the  meeting  of 
the  next  General  Convention,  and  that  the  subject  be  made  the  order 
of  the  day  for  to-morrow,  (Tuesday.  Oct  20. 

That  the  report  of  the  Committee  ou  Canons  (proposing  amendments  to 
Section  V.,  Canon  13.  Title  I,.)  be  taken  from  the  table. 

That  the  House  take  a  recess  for  half  an  hour 

That— the  House  of  Bishops  concurring— the  canon  proposed  by  the 
Committee  on  Canons  in  lieu  of  Section  V.,  Canon  13,  Title  I.,  be 
adopted.     Non-concurred  in.  vide  ,Mess:Hge  H.  B..  ^o.  40. 

That  the  Liturgical  Report  made  by  the  Rev.  Dr  T.  W.  Coit  to  the  Gen- 
ernl  Convention  of  1841.  (in  behalf  of  the  Joint  Commitiee  on  the 
Standard  Prayer  i^ook),  be  printed  in  the  appendix  to  the  Journal  of 
the  Convention. 

That  Message  No  15  from  the  House  of  Bishops  (concerning  admission 
of  clergy  of  the  Church  in  Canada  to  the  rights  and  privileges  of 
those  of  American  ordination.)  be  referred  to  the  Committte  on 
Canons. 

That  the  daily  sessions  of  this  House,  for  the  future,  continue  from 
10  A.  M.  to  1  p.  M.,  and  from  2  p.  m.  to  5  p.  m. 

That  a  resolution  (propo.'^ing  amendment  to  Section  2,  Canon  17,  Title 
I.),  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  fraver  Book. 

That  the  Joint  Commitftee  on  the  standard  Prayer  Book  be  authorized 
to  consider  and  report  to  the  next  (jeneral  Conveniion,  on  the  proper 
printing  of  the  Prayer  Book,  and  as  to  the  restoration  of  words  left 
out  of  said  Book  by  clerical  error. 

That  a  resolution  (of  inquiry  as  to  the  punctuation  of  the  Epistle  for 
Good  Friday)  be  referred  tn  the  Committee  on  the  Praver  Book. 

That  the  report  of  the  Committee  on   Canons  (concerning  a  proposed 
Canon  in  place  of  Canon  XI.  of  Title  I.)  be  recommitted,  together 
with  a  resolution  (proposing  a  draft  of  Canon  in  place  of  I'anon  XI 
Title  I  ) 

That  the  House  adjourn. 

TWELFTH    DAT 

That  the  minutes  be  approved. 

Thut  the  order  of  the  lay  be  postponed  until  the  following  question 
be  dii^posed  of. 

That,  (the  House  of  Bishops  concurring,)  a  section  to  be  numbered  8i 
be  added  to  Canon  o,  Title  I.  (concerning  the  esimination  of  Candd 
dates  for  Orders),  as  reported  by  the  C'imniirtee  on  Canons,  an-, 
amended  by  the  House       Non  concurred  in,  vide  Mess,  H.  B.  No. 36. 

That  the  Diocesef  be  railed  on  to  name  tht-ir  re>pective  choice  of  place 
for  the  meeting  of  the  next  General  Convention,  and  after  the  first 
baliot.  all  but  the  tive  places  receiving  the  highest  number  of  votes 
be  dropped. 

That  the  vote  on  the  part  of  this  House,  in  favor  of  the  City  of  Balti- 
more, as  the  pbice  of  meeting  of  the  next  General  Convention,  be 
made  unanimous 

Concurred  in  by  unanimous  vote  of  H.  B.      Vide  Mess.  No.  25. 

That  Messages  Nds.  16,  (announcing  proposed  change  in  i'lau.«e3.  of 
Section  XVI,  Canon  13,  Title  I,  concerning  Epi.scopal  KesignationsJ 
and  19,  (proposing  amendment  of  Article  III.  of  the  constitution, 
removing  the  requirement,  that  of  action  in  all  matt^-r-s  proposed  for 
their  concurrence  within  three  days)  from  the  House  of  Bishops,  be 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  Canons. 

Tnat  Message  No.  20,  (nominating  the  (>ev.  Benj  Wistar  Morris,  A.M., 
as  Missionary  Bishop  of  Oregon  and  Washington),  he  made  the  order 
of  the  Day  for  Wedne.sday,  Oct    21. 

That  the  whole  subject,  (to  wit,  the  Ileport  of  the  (.'ommittee  on  Can- 
ons concerning  Section  14,  Canon  13,  Titl<>  I,  together  with  an 
amendment  compri.-^ing  the  orij^iual  re.solurim  rffened  to  the  com- 
mittee,) he  laid  on  the  table. 

That  the   report  of  the  Committee  on  Canons,  asking  to  be  discharged 


216 


from  further  consideration  of  several  proposed  amendments  to  Canon 
12,  Title  I,  together  with  sundry  proposed  amendments  and  instruc- 
tions, be  laid  ou  the  Table. 

That  the  above  vote  be  reconsidered. 

That  the  said  report  and  proposed  amendments,  he  recommitted  to  the 
committee  to  consider  and  report. 

That  this  House  does  not  concur  in  the  Resolution  contained  in  Mess- 
age No.  15,  from  the  'louse  of  Bishop.-t  (convcjing  fraternal  greetings 
to  Canadian  Church  or  removal  of  disabilities  on  Clergy  of  Knglish  of 
Colonial  ordination),  said  resolution  being  at  variance  with  the  pro- 
visions of  Canon  10,  Title  I. 

That  the  subject  of  a  reconsideration  of  the  vote,  adopting  on  the  part 
of  this  House  an  amendment,  proposed  by  the  Committee  on  Canons, 
of  the  Canon  respecting  the  election  of  Assistant  Bishops,  be  made 
the  order  of  the  day  for  Wednesday,  Oct.  21st,  at  2  o'clock,  P.  M. 

That  the  House  adjourn. 

THIRTEENTH   DAT. 

That  the  Minutes  be  approved. 

That  the  Secretary  inlorm  the  House  of  Bishops,  that  the  question  of 
reconsideration  of  the  vote,  adopting  a  proposed  amendment  to  the 
Canon  on  the  election  of  Assistant  Bishops,  is  peudinjr,  and  respect- 
fully request  the  return  of  Message  No.  21,  from  this  House. 

That,  the  House  of  Bishops  concurring,  Section  III,  Canon  9,  Title  I,  be 
amended,  so  as  to  read  in  line  3,  "the  Presiding  Bishop,"  instead  of 
"the  Presiding  Bishop  of  the  Church."' 

Concurred  in,  vu/e  Jless.  H.  B.,  No.  31 

That  the  Committee  on  Canons  be  discharged  from  further  considera- 
tion of  a  resolution  of  inquiry,  as  to  the  necessity  of  adding  to  Art. 
IV,  of  the  Constitution,  the  words  "or  by  the  Bishop  himself  of 
some  other  diocese."' 

That  leave  be  granted  to  the  Committee  on  Canons,  at  their  request, 
to  withdraw  their  report,  presented  on  the  6th  day  of  the  Session, 
(offering  a  draft  of  a  Canon  on  Federative  Conventions  or  (.'ouncils.} 

That,  the  Hou.-^e  of  Bishops  concurring,  the  names  of  the  Trustees  of 
the  General  Theological  Seminary  for  the  various  dioceses  submitted, 
with  the  report  of  the  committee  on  said  seminary,  be  approved. 

Non-concuired  in,  and  list  returned.       Vide  Message  U.  B.,  No.  58. 

List  sent  back  to  House  of  Bishops.      Vide  Mess.  H.  D.,  No.  77. 

Finally  concurred  in.      Vide  Mess.  H.  B  .  No.  71. 

That  the  form  of  a  Testimonial  for  a  Missionary  Biehop-Blect  be 
read,  and  then  after  silent  Prayer,  the  House  proceed  to  ballot  on 
nomination  of  a  Missionary  Bishop  of  Oregon  and  Washington,  made 
by  the  Hou.'e  of  Bishops 

That  the  vote  be  made  uDanimoua. 

Tbat  the  House  unite  in  singing  the  Gloria  in  Ezr.tlsis  Dfo. 

That  the  resolutions  accompanying  the  report  of  the  Committee  on 
Christian  Education,  be  made  the  order  of  the  day  for  Thursday, 
October  22d. 

That  leave  of  the  House  be  granted  to  the  Joint  Committee  on 
communication  with  the  Russo-Greek  Church,  to  report  in  print. 

That  the  resolution,  (that  it  is  inexpedient  to  make  alterations  in  the 
Prayer  Book,)  be  made  the  second  order  of  the  day,  for  Thursday, 
October  22d. 

That  the  resolutions  accompanying  the  report  of  the  Special  Committee 
of  Laymen  on  the  subject  of  Clerical  support,  be  recommitted  for 
further  practical  suggestions,  and  that  two  clergymen  be  added  to  the 
number. 

That  the  canons  accompanying  the  report  of  the  Special  Committee  on 
the  Provincial  System,  together  with  the  Canou  on  Federative  Con- 
ventions or  Councils,  proposed  by  the  Committee  on  Canons,  be 
printed,  and  made  the  order  of  the  day  for  Friday,  October  23rd. 

That  the  Secretary  inform  the  House  of  Bishops  of  the  election  of  the 
Rev  Benj.  Wistar  Morris,  as  Missionary  Bishop  of  Oregon  and  Wash- 
ington ;  and  that  he  transmit  the  Testimonial  in  favor  of  the  said 
Missionary  Bishop-Etect,  as  signed  by  a  constitutional  majority  of 
bof.h  orders  of  this  House. 

That  the  House  adjourn. 

FOURTEENTH   DAT. 

That  the  minutes  be  approved. 

That  a  resolution  (of  inquiry  as  to  the  expedience  of  preparing  a  table 
of  proper  lessons  for  daily  Prayer  in  Lent),  be  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  the  Prayer  Book. 

That  the  resolution  accompanying  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Can- 
ons, (proposing  amendment  of  Sections  I  and  II,  of  Canon  I,  Title  I, 
be  made  the  order  of  the  day,  after  the  preceding  order  has  been  dis- 
posed cf. 

That  the  order  of  the  day  be  postponed  till  the  question  (on  amending 
clause  [I],  Section  VI,  Canou  12,  Title  1,  as  proposed  by  the  Commit- 
tee on  Canons),  be  disposed  of 

That  the  consideration  of  the  question  under  discussion,  be  postponed 
for  the  appointment  of  a  comaiittee. 

That  the  whole  matter,  to  wit,  proposed  amendment  of  Clause  (1,) 
Section  VI.  Canon  12,  Title  1,  be  indefinitely  postponed. 

That  the  proposed  Canon  on  the  Consecration  of  Churches,  reported 
by  the  Committee  on  Canons,  be  made  the  order  of  the  day,  for  Fri- 
day, October  23d. 

That  a  proposed  draft  of  Canon  ''Of  Marriage  and  Divorce,"  to  be 
numbered  Canon  13,  Title  II,  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Can- 
ons. 

That  a  proposed  Canon  "on  the  use  of  Ilymns,^'  be  referred  to  same 
committee. 

That  a  memorial  from  certain  Presbyters  on  the  same  subject,  be  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  Canons. 

That  a  petition  from  the  Diocese  of  Michigan,  touching  the  use  "of 
Hymns,  ancient  aud  modern.''  be  referred  to  the  same  committee. 

That  a  proposed  canon,  (amending  Section  VI,  of  Canon  5,  of  Title  I), 
be  reterred  to  the  san)e  committee. 

That  the  resolution  accompanying  the  report  of  the  Committee  of  Con- 
ference, on  Message  from  the  House  of  Bishops,  No  26,  (authorizing 
the  appointment  by  the  House  of  Bishops,  from  among  their  own 


number)  of  "The  Commission  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  United  States  of  America,  on  Church  Unity,  [Mess.  No.  84, 
from  the  House  of  Bishops,  announced  the  appointment  of  Bishop 
Mollvaine,  Whittingbam,  Atkinson,  Clark  and  Cose  on  this  "Com- 
mission." ■ 

That  the  resolutions  accompanying  the  report  of  the  Joint  Committee 
on  the  Italian  Reform  movement,  communicated  to  this  House  in 
Message  No.  27.  from  the  Houi^e  of  Bishops,  be  made  the  order  of 
the  day  for  Saturday,  October  2tth. 

That  the  preamble  and  resolucioD  adopted  by  the  Convention  of  the 
Diocese  of  Alabama,  together  wiih  sundry  memorials  from  clergy 
and  laity  of  the  Church,  (concerning  a  new  translation  of  the  Nicene 
Creed,)  be  refern^d  to  the  Committee  on  the  Prayer  Book. 

That  a  similar  preamble  and  resolution,  adopted  by  the  Convention  of 
the  Diocese  of  Indiana,  be  referred  to  the  same  committee. 

That  a  similar  preamble  and  resolution,  adopted  by  the  Diocese  fo 
Wisconsin,  with  an  accompanjing  draft  of  a  Canon  on  the  use  of 
the  Nicene  Creed,  be  referred  to  the  same  committee. 

That  a  resolution  (of  similar  import)  adopted  by  the  Convention  fo 
the  Diocese  of  Missouri,  be  referred  to  the  same  committee. 

That  a  resolution  (preliminary  to  those  offered  by  the  Committee  on 
Christian  Education,  aud  affirming  that  the  Christian  education  of 
her  children  is  the  Church's  work  in  her  organic  corporate  capacity 
and  of  co-ordinate  importance  with  her  missonary  work)  be  adopted. 

That  the  resolutions  accompanying  the  report  of  the  Committee  on 
i'hri.«tian  Education,  be  considered  separately. 

That  the  five  resolutions  (pi'oposiog,  the  House  of  Bishops  concurring, 
the  appointment  of  a  joint  commission  to  x'aise  funds,  to  assist  in 
Christian  education  at  the  South,  and  naming  the  members  thereto, 
on  the  part  of  the  House),  be  adopted.  Non-concurred  in,  vide  Mess. 
U.  B,  No.  59. 

That  the  second  resolution  (proposing,  with  the  concurrence  of  the 
House  of  Bishoi)S,  the  appointment  of  a  joint  Committee  to  take 
into  consideration  the  whole  subject  of  Theological  Study  and  Theo- 
logical Schools)  he  adopted.  [Non  concurred  in.  Vide  Mess  H.  B. 
No  35.] 

That  the  third  resolution  (recommending,  the  House  of  Bishops  con- 
cuning,  the  establishment  of  Christian  schools  in  every  parish 
where  practicable)  be  adopted.  Concurred  in.    Vide  Mesfc.  H.  B.  No.  35. 

That  the  fourth  resolution  (recommending  the  opening  of  schools  in 
chapfl-school  houses,  which  can  be  used  for  Divine  service  on  Sun- 
days, as  an  economical  mode  of  planting  and  establishing  the  Church) 
be  adopted. 

That  the  fifth  resolution  (recommending,  with  the  concurrence  of  the 
House  of  Bishops,  the  appointment  of  a  Standing  Committee  on 
Christian  education  in  every  Diocese)  be  adopted.  [Non-coucurred 
in.      Vide  Mess.  H.  B   No.  :35.1 

That  the  sixth  resolution  (recommending,  the  House  of  Bishops  con- 
curring, the  subject  of  a  Training  House  for  Teachers  and  associations 
of  Teachers,  male  and  femile,  under  Episcopal  regulations)  be  adopt- 
ed.    [Concurred  in       Vide  Mess.  H.  B.  No.  35. 

That  the  resolutions  reported  by  the  committee  (as  above)  be  adopted 
as  a  whole. 

That  the  order  of  the  day  (to  wit  resolutions  that  it  is  inexpedient  to 
make  any  alterations  in  the  Standard  Prayer  Book)  he  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  the  Prayer  Book. 

That  the  House  adjourn. 

Fifteenth  Dat. 

That  the  Minutes  be  approved. 

That  a  committee  be  appointed — the  House  of  Bishops  concurring — to 
confer  with  a  committee  of  that  House  in  regard  to  the  time  of  ad- 
journment of  this  Convention. 

That  this  House  meet  hereafter  at  9.  30  A.  M.,  and  continue  in  session 
until  4  p.  HI. 

That — the  House  of  Bishops  concurring — this  House  adjourn  si'ne  die 
on  Monday  next.  [Non-concurrence  of  bishops  reported  by  the  com- 
mittee appointed  as  above  to  confer  with  the  House  of  Bishops]- 

That  the  House  does  not  concur  in  the  Amendment  to  Article  III.  of 
the  Constitution,  proposed  in  message  No.  19  from  the  House  of  Bish- 
ops (requesting  removal  of  requirement  of  action  ou  the  part  of  the 
House  of  Bishops  on  all  matters  proposed  for  their  concurrence  within 
three  days) 

That  this  House  does  not  concur  in  the  alteration  of  clause  [3]  Canon 

>■-  Is,  Title  I,  proposed  in  Message,  No.  16  from  the  House  of  Bishops 
(intended  to  obviate  the  necessity  of  a  ynetting  of  the  Bishops  to  oon- 
sider  a  proposed  resignation  and  authorizing  action  by  correspond- 
ence). 

That  the  Secretary  he  authorized  to  effect  the  purchase  of  the  stereo- 
type plates  of  tiie  reprinted  early  Journals,  and  to  continue  the  issue 
of  the  republication,  if  possible. 

That — the  House  of  Bishops  concurring — the  Joint  Committee  on  the 
Republication  of  the  early  Journals  be  continued,  with  power  to  en- 
large the  numbers.  [Concurred  in.  Vvle  Message  of  House  of  Bish- 
ops No.  39.  Committee,  Bishops  Potter,  Williams  and  Odenheimer  ; 
Kev.  Drs  Higbee,  Howe,  aud  \Vm.  Cooper  Mead  ;  Rev.  Wm.  Stevens 
Perry  ;  Messrs.  Samuel  B.  Ilnggles,  LL.  D.,  James  Pott  and  Edward 
P.  Dutton. 

That — the  House  of  Bishops  concurring — amendments  be  made  to 
Article  IV.  of  the  Constitution  of  the  Board  of  Missions  (so  that  it 
may  hereafter  read  as  follows  ;  I.  "  To  the  Board  of  Missions  shall  be 
entrusted  the  considtration  of  the  practical  ivork  of  the  Cnurch,  and 
the  supervision,  &c  ,  and  adding,  II.,  "  the  Bishop  and  Standing 
Commitue  of  each  Diocese  may  appoini  substituttsfrom  the  same  di- 
ocese for  such  me77ibers  of  the  Board  as  may  he  unable  to  attend  its 
inefiings.^''  [First  amendment  non-concurred  iu.  Vide  Message  of 
House  of  Bishops,  No.  43.  Second  amendment  concurred  in.  Vide 
same  Message]. 

That  the  resolutions  reported  by  the  Committee  un  Clerical  Support  be 
adopted. 


217 


That  the  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Canons  (proposiug  a  Canon  on 

KodLTiile  OoDventious  or  Councils)  be  tiiken  from  tlie  table. 
That  a  memorial  of  certiiin  clergymen  (pmying  for  a  rubrical  relaxa- 
tion) be  referreil  to  the  Committee  onC:inons. 
That  the  lIou.se  concurs  in  the  action  of  the  House  of  Bishops,  commu- 
nicated   in   Message  No.  30    (appointing  the  liev.  William   Stevens 
I'erry    Historiographer,  in    place   of  the   late   Kev.    Dr.   Francis  L. 
Uawks). 
That  a  statement  of  changes  made  in  the  canoae  be  prepared,  printed 
and  sent  to  all  entitled  to  receive  Journals,  immediately  after  ad- 
journment. 
That  the  Secretary  return  the  thanks  of  the  Convention  to  various  in- 
stitutions and  societies. 
That  the  members  of  this  House  learn  with  satisfaction  that  the  num- 
ber oi   subscribers  to   the  Documentary   Annals   of  the   American 
Church  is  nearly  sufficient  to  warrant  the  publication  of  the  whole 
series. 
That  the  thanks  of  the  House  are  due  to  the  Rev.  William  Stevens  Perry 

for  the  intei-est  taken  by  him  in  this  important  work. 
That  the  Canon  on  Federate  Conventions  or  Councils,   as  reported  by 
the  Committee  on  Canons  be  adopted,  to  wit : 

Retolvedy  Ihe  House  of  Bishops  concurring,  that  the  following  be 
adopted  as  Canon  —  of  Title  — ,  to  ^vit :  Canon  — ,  authorizing  the 
Formation  of  a  Federate  Convention,  or  ('ouncil  of  the  Dioceses  within 
any  Stiitc.  It  is  hereby  declared  lawful  for  the  Dioceses  now  existing, 
or  hereafter  to  exist  wjtliin  the  limits  of  any  State  or  Commonwealth, 
to  establish  for  themselves  a  Federate  Convention  or  Council,  represent- 
ing such  Dioceses  which  may  deliberate  and  decide  upon  the  common 
interests  of  the  Church,  within  the  limits  aforesaid,  but  before  any  de- 
terminate action  of  such  Convention  or  Council  shall  be  had,  the  pow- 
ers proposed  to  be  exercised  thereby  shall  be  submitted  to  the  General 
Convention  for  its  approval. 

Nothing  in  this  Canon  shall  be  construed  as  forbidding  any  Federate 
Council  from  taking  such  action  as  they  may  deem  necessary  to  secure 
Buch  legislative  enactments  as  the  common  interests  of  the  Church  in 
the  State  may  require. 

Concurred  in.      Vide  Message  of  the  House  of  Bishops,  No.  61. 
That  the  order  of  the  day  (to  wit,  the  report  of  the  Committee  on 

Canons  on  the  (.'on  sec  ration  of  Churches)  be  laid  on  the  table. 
That  the  Amendment  to  the  proposed  Amendments  to  Canon  11,   Title 

I.,  prepared  by  the  Committee  on  Canons  be  adopted. 
That,  the  House  of  Bishops  concuiTing,  i^ections  1  and  2  of  Canon  11, 
of  Title  I.,  be  amended  so  as  to  read : 

Canon  11.  "  Of  I'ersousnot  Ministers  of  the  Church,  officiating  in  any 
Congregation  thereof. — No  minister  in  charge  of  any  congregation  of 
this  Church,  or.  in  case  of  vacancy  or  absence,  no  Church  Wardens, 
Yestryuien  or  Trustees  of  the  congregation  shall  permit  any  person 
to  officiate  therein  without  sufficient  evidence  of  his  being  duly  licensed 
or  ordained  to  minister  in  this  Church.  Provided  that  nothing  herein 
shall  be  so  construed  as  to  forbid  communicants  of  the  Church  to  act 
as  Lay  Headers.  Canon  11.  Title  1  ,  Section  1  and  2,  is  hereby  repeal- 
ed ;  provided  that  such  repeal  shall  not  affect  any  case  of  a  violation  of 
laid  cauon  committed  before  this  date  ;  but  such  case  shall  be  governed 
by  the  same  law  as  if  no  such  repeal  had  taken  place." 

Concurred  in.     Vide  Message  of  House  of  Bishops  No.  46. 
That  the  Secretary  be  authorized  to  purchase  ten  copies  of  the  verbatim 

report  of  the  proceedings  and  debates  of  this  House. 
That  the  resolutions  accompanying  the  report  of  the  Joint  Committ«e 
on  the  Standard  Bible  be  adopted  ;  (the  Ist  recognizing  until  further 
order  the  Oxford  4to  edition  of  1852  as  the  standard,  and  the  2d  dis- 
charging the  committee). 
That  the  vote  adopting  the  above  resolutions,  and  discharging  the  Joint 
Committee,  be  reconsidered  and  the  committee  continued  to  sit  during 
the  recess. 
Ttlat  the  House  adjourn. 

Sixteenth  Day. 

That  the  Minutes  be  approved. 

That  it  is  not  expedient  to  amend  Section  2  of  Canon  5,  Title  III.  (au- 
thorizing the  loruiation  of  a  parish  under  certain  contingencies  with- 
out the  consent  of  the  ecclesiastical  authority.) 

That  the  committee  of  Arrangements  be  empowered,  with  a  similar 
committee  to  be  appointed  by  the  House  of  Bishops,  to  arrange  for 
the  closing  services  of  the  Convention. 

That  live  thousand  copies  of  the  Journal  be  printed,  &c. 

That  a  motion  of  reference  to  the  Committee  of  Canons  on  the  question 
of  prohibiting  the  holding  of  General  Conventions  in  consecrated 
churches  be  laid  on  the  table. 

That  the  member  of  the  Committee  on  Canons,  who  introduced  the 
proposed  Canon  on  the  Conpecration  of  Churches  have  leave  of  the 
House  to  make  certain  explanatious  with  regard  to  said  Cauon. 

That  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Canons  (proposing  said  Canon)  be 
taken  from  the  table. 

That  the  said  report  be  again  laid  on  the  table. 

That— the  House  of  Bishops  concurring — Canon  I.,  Title  III.,  Section 
V  ,  be  amended  by  substituting,  m  the  fifth  line,  the  word  ''  tkree'*^ 
in  place  it  the  word  "  two.''''  Concurred  in.  Vide  Message  of  House 
of  Bishops,  No.  41. 

That  the  Treasurer  be  instructed  to  pay  the  Secretary  of  the  House  the 
sum  of  S750,  and  the  Secretary  of  the  House  of  Bishops  the  sum  of 
S2oU. 

That  the  Secretary  and  Treasurer  jointly  be  authorized  to  make  an  ad- 
ditional assessment  in  the  Dioceses  if  necessary. 

That — the  House  of  Bishops  concurring — iu  future  editions  of  the 
standard  J'rayer  Book,  a  note  be  inserted  declaring  the  fact  that  al- 
terations were  made  iu  several  of  the  late  editions  printed  from  the 
stereotype  plates  mentioned  in  Section  II.  of  Canon  17,  Title  I.  Con- 
curred in  with  this  amendment,  ''  That  the  alterations  referred  to  be 
specified  in  the  note  to  be  inserted  in  the  Prayer  Book."    Message  of 

28 


>    House  of  Bishops,  No.  52.    The  amendment  concurred  in  by  House 

of  Deputies.      Kide  Message  No    64. 
That  agreeably   to  the  desire   expressed  by  the  House  of  Bishops  (in 

Message  No.  33,  asking  pni>  era  of  the  House  of  Dt-'puties   while   the 

Convention  is  deliberating  on  the  subject  of  Indian  Jlissioiinj  space 
.    be  taken  for  silent  prayer,  and  that  the  President  offer  prayer  from 

the  Book  of  Common  Prayer 
That  the  resolutious  aci-oiii[»au3ing  the  report  of  the  Joint  Committee 

on  the  ItaUan  Reform  Movement  be  adopted. 
That  the  House  concurs  in   the  resolution    of   the  House  of  Bishops, 

communicated  in  Message  No,  29,  continuing  and  increasing  the  Joint 

Committee  on  the  Italian  lieform  Movemeut. 
That  the  House  proceed  to  the   consideration  of  the   Message  of   the 

House  of  Bishops,  No.  32  (concerning  Divorce). 
That  the  Message  of  the  House  of  Bishops,  No.  32,  with  the  amendment 

and  resolution  thereon  be  referred  to  the  ('ommittee  on  Canons,  and 

that  their  report  on  the  same  subject  be  re-couimitted  to  them. 
That  certain  documents  (liom  heirs  of  the  late  Typographical  t.-orrector 

of  the  Standard  Bible)  l)e  referred  to  the  Joint  Committee  on  Standard 

Bible. 
That  the  resolution  accompanying  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Can- 
ons, amending  Canon  2Si,  Title  11.,  {of  offences  for  which  clergymen 

shall  be  tried)  be  adopted,  to  wit : 

Resolved, — the  House  of  Bishops  concurring — that  Canon  2  of  Title 
II.  is  hereby  amended  so  as  to  read  as  follows  :  §  I.  Every  minister  of 
this  Church  shall  be  liable  to  presentment  and  trial  for  the  following  of- 
fences, viz. : 

1.  Crime  or  immorality. 

2.  Holding  and  teaching  publicly  or  privately,  and  advisedly,  any  doc- 
trine contrary  to  that  held  by  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in 
the  United  States  of  America. 

3.  A'iolatinn  of  the  Constitution  or  L'anons  of  the  General  Convention. 

4.  Violation  of  the  Con&titutiou  or  Canons  of  the  Diocese  to  which  he 
belongs. 

5.  Any  act  which  involves  a  breach  of  the  ordination  vows  : 

And  on  being  found  guilty  he  shall  be  admonished,  suspended  or  de- 
graded, according  to  the  Canons  of  the  Diocese  in  which  the  trial  takes 
place,  until  otherwise  provided  for  by  the  General  Convention. 

J  II.  If  a  Minister  of  this  Church  shall  be  accused  by  public  rumors 
of  discontinuing  iill  exercises  of  tlie  ministerial  office  without  lawful 
cause,  or  of  living  in  the  habitual  disuse  of  pubhc  worship  or  of  tbe 
Holy  Eucharist  according  to  the  offices  of  this  Church,  or  of  being  guil- 
ty of  any  or  either  of  the  offences  enumerated  in  the  first  section,  it 
shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Bishop,  or  if  there  be  no  Bishop,  of  the  clerical 
members  of  the  Standing  Committee,  to  see  that  an  inquu-y  be  insti- 
tuted as  to  the  truth  of  such  public  rumor.  And  in  case  of  the  individ- 
ual being  proceeded  against  and  convicted  according  to  such  rules  of 
process  as  may  be  provided  by  the  Conventions  of  the  respective  Dio- 
ceses, he  shall  be  admonished,  susp.nded  or  degraded,  as  the  nature  of 
the  case  may  require,  in  conformity  with  their  respective  Constitutions 
and  Canons." 

Concurred  in.      Vide  Message  of  the  House  of  Bishops,  No.  51. 
That  when  this  House  adjourn,  it  adjourn  to  meet  on  Monday  at  9.8U 

A.  M.,  and  to  continue  in  session  till  5  P.  M.,  with  a  recess  of  one  hour 
That  the  House  adjourn. 

SEVEiNTEKNXn    DAT. 

That  the  Minutes  he  approved. 

That  Message  No.  34  from  the  House  of  Bishops  (on  Section  1,  Canon 
lU,  Title  I.)  be  referred  to  the  CommiUee  on  Canons. 

That  a  resolution  (suggestiug  the  euuni'jration  of  all  the  baptized  mem- 
bers of  the  Chux'ch,  aud  also  of  the  confirmed  in  each  pjirish)  be  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  the  >tate  of  the  Church. 

That  a  resolution  of  inquiry  (on  the  expediiMicy  of  omitting  the  words 
"Clerical  and  Lay"  in  the  title  of  this  House)  be  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Canons. 

That  a  resolution  of  inquiry  (on  the  propriety  of  enacting  a  canon 
making  it  obligsitory  on  new  Dioceses  to  form  their  Stjinding  Commit- 
tees of  an  equal  number  of  clergymen  and  laymen)  be  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Canons. 

That  Messages  Nos.  34  (amending  section  HI,  Cauon  5,  Title  III.)  35 
(communicating  action  of  House  of  Bishops  on  resolutions  accompany- 
ing report  of  Committee  on  Chri^tiiln  educatiouj  and  36,  (non-concur- 
ring in  Message  of  House  of  Deputies,  No.  22,  adding  a  section  [VIII.] 
to  Canon  5,  Title  I.)  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Canons. 

That  the  House  reconsider  its  vote  concerning  the  number  of  Joumab 
to  be  printed. 

That  the  Secretary  be  instructed  to  have  an  adequate  number  printed 
to  furnish  two  copies  to  every  clergyman,  &c. 

That  this  House  concur  in  the  amendment  proposed  in  Message  of  the 
House  of  Bishops  No.  42,  to  the  resolutions  (concerning  the  Commis- 
sion on  Archives)  originally  connnunicated  to  the  House  of  Bishops  in 
Mes.sage  House  of  Deputies  No.  20. 

That  this  House  respectfully  declines  to  unite  in  the  letter  sent  to  this 
House  by  the  House  of  Bishops  respecting  the  Oneida  Indians.  ' 

That  the  resolutious  accompanying  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  the 
Prayer  Book  be  adopted  :  {I.  referring  the  subject  of  a  Table  of  Prop- 
er Services  for  Lent  to  the  same  Committee  on  the  Praj  er  Book  ;  11.. 
referring  certaiu  proposed  changes  iu  the  language  of  the  Metrical 
Psalms  iiud  Hymns  to  the  simie  committee  ;  111.,  referring  a  commu- 
nication from  the  Kev.  President  of  CoUmibia  College,  New  York,  to 
the  same  committee  ;  I\  -.  referring  the  inquiry  as  to  the  discrepancy 
between  the  punctuation  of  the  Good  Fi-idaj  Ej^istle  and  that  of  the 
same  passjtge  in  the  Standard  Bible,  to  the  same  committee). 

That  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  the  Fund  fur  the  Relief  of  Widows  and 
Orphans  of  Deceased  Clergymen  aud  of  Aged,  luhrm  and  Disabled 
Clergymen  be  discharged.  [Concurred  in.  Vide  Message  Ltou^e  of 
Bishops,  No.  55-J 

That  the  House  concurs  in  Message  of  House  of  Bishops  No.  44,  concern* 
iug    appointment  of  Joint   Committee   on   Theological    Education. 


218 


[Committee,  Bishops  Whittingham  and  Williama,   Rev.  Drs.  Huight 
ami  Hare,  Messrs.  Orlando  Mead  and  Origin  S.  Seymour,  L.  L.  D.  ] 
That  a  Committee  of  Conference  be  requested  on  the  subject  matter  of 

Message  of  Uouse  of  Bishops,  No.  43. 
Thata  resolution  of  inquiry'  (respecting  the  expediency  of  providing  a 
Form  of  Thanksgiving  for  the  recovery  of  a  iJhild  from  ilhieas)  be  re- 
ferred to  the  Joint  Committee  on  the  Standard  Prayer  Book. 
That  a  resolution  of  inquiry  (as  to  the  expediency  of  introducing   the 
__    pointing  of  the   Psalter  for  Chanting,  as  in  the  English  Prayer  Book) 

be  referred  to  the  same  committee. 

That  certain  resolutions  offered  on  the  11th  day  of  the  session  (touching 

the  pointing  of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  and  the  introduction  of  the  word 

"  Holy"  into  the   Micene  Creed)  be  referred  to  the  same  committee. 

That  a  resolution  (proposing  a  (."anon  on  the  Consecration  of  Churches) 

be  laid  on  the  table. 
That  the  preamble  a-nd  resolution  (concerning  the  use  of  liturgic  fonns, 
in  their  native  tongue,   other  than   thoBe  prescribed  by  the    Prayer 
Book,  by  foreigners,)  be  referred  to  the  Joint  Committee  on  the  Ke- 
view  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  in  German. 
That  a  resolution  of  inquiry  (as  to  the  time  and  occasion  of  the  omission 
of  the  word  "  Holy"  in  the  Nicene  Creed)  be  referred  to  the  Commit- 
tee on  the  Prayer  Book. 
That  the  Secretaries  incorporate  in  all  future  messages  a  statement   of 

the  subject  matter  thereof. 
That  the  Message  of  the  House  of  Bishops,  No.  35,  be  referred   to   the 

Committee  on  Christian  education. 
That  the  House  proceed  to  vote  by  Dioceses  and  orders  on  the  proposed 

alterations  of  Article  V.  of  the  Constitution. 
That  the  resolution  reported  by  the  Committee  of  Conference  be  adopted 
by  the  Uouse  as  loUows  ; 

Resolved,  that  the  alteration  of  the  Constitution  (together  with  the 
amendment  of  the  Canons)  recommended  in  the  following  resolution  be 
proposed,  and  that  the  same  be  made  known  to  the  several  Diocesan 
Conventions,  in  pursuance  of  Article  IX.  of  the  Constitution,  viz  : 

Resolved,  that  Article  V.  of  the  Constitution  be  amended  so  as  to  read 
as  follows : 

A  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  any  of  the  United  States,  or  any 
territory  thereof,  not  now  represented,  may,  at  any  time  hereafter,  be 
admitted  on  acceding  to  this  Constitution  ;  and  a  new  Diocese,  to  be 
formed  from  one  or  more  existing  Dioceses,  may  be  admitted  under  the 
following  restrictions,  viz : 

No  new  Diocese  shall  be  formed  or  erected  within  the  limits  of  any 
other  Diocese,  uor  shall  any  Diocese  be  formed  by  the  junction  of  two  or 
more  Dioceses,  or  parts  of  Dioceses ,  unlei^s  with  the  consent  of  the  Bish- 
op and  Convention  of  each  of  the  Dioceses  concerned,  as  well  as  of  the 
General  Convention,  and  such  consent  shall  not  be  given  by  the  General 
Convention  until  it  has  satisfactory  as;>uruuce  of  a  suitable  provision  for 
the  support  of  the  Episcopate  in  the  contemplated  new  Diocese. 

No  such  new  Diocese  shall  be  formed  which  shall  contain  less  than  six 
Parishes,  nor  less  than  six  Presbyters,  who  have  been  for  at  least  one  year 
canonically  resident  within  the  bounds  uf  such  new  Diocese,  and  quali- 
fied to  vote  for  a  Bishop. 

Nor  shall  such  new  Diocese  be  formed  if  thereby  any  existing  Diocese 
shall  be  reduced  so  as  to  contain  less  than  twelve  Parishes,  or  leas  than 
twelve  Presbyters  who  have  been  residing  thereiu  and  settled  and  quali- 
fied as  above  mentioned  :  Provided  that  no  city  shall  form  more  than 
one  Diocese. 

In  case  one  Diocese  shall  be  divided  into  two  or  more  Dioceses,  the 
Diocesan  of  the  Diocese  divided  may  elect  the  one  to  which  he  will  be 
attached ;  and  shall  thei-eupon  become  the  Diocesan  thereof,  and  the 
Assistant  Bishop,  if  there  be  one,  may  elect  the  one  to  which  he  will  be 
attached :  and  if  it  be  not  the  one  elected  by  the  Bishop  he  shall  be  the 
Diocesan  thereof. 

Whenever  the  division  of  a  Diocese  into  two  or  more  Dioceses  shall  be 
ratified  by  the  General  Convention,  each  of  the  Dioceses  shall  be  subject 
to  the  Constitution  and  Canons  of  the  Diocese  so  divided,  except  as  local 
circumstances  may  prevent,  until  fhe  same  may  be  altered  in  either 
Diocese  by  the  Convention  thereof.  And  whenever  a  Diocese  shall  be 
formed  out  of  two  or  more  existing  Dioceses,  the  new  Diocese  shall  be 
subject  to  the  Loustitutiou  and  Canons  of  that  one  of  the  said  existing 
Dioceses  to  which  the  greater  number  of  Clergymen  shall  have  belonged 
prior  to  the  erection  of  such  new  Diocese,  until  the  same  may  be  altered 
by  the  Convention  of  the  new  Diocese. 

Concurred  in.  Vide  Message  House  of  Bishops  No.  60. 
That  the  Secretarj  be  requested  respectfulyl  ,to  inquire  the  reason  of 
the.  oversight  in  Message  House  of  Bishops  No.  35  (in  not  commu- 
nicating action  with  respect  to  the  1st  resolution  offered  by  the  Com- 
mittee on  Christian  Education.) 
That  this  House  concur  in  the  Resolution  submitted  to  this  House  in 
Message  of  the  Uouse  of  Bishops  No.  32  (on  the  subject  of  Divorce) 
amended  as  follows,  viz  : 

Canon  13,  Title  II.     On  Marriage  and  Divorce. 
No  Minister  of  this  Church  shall  .solemnize  marriage  in  any  case  where 
there  is  a  divorced  wife  or  husband  of  either  party  still  hving  :  but  this 
Canon  shall  not  be  held  to  apply  to  the  innocent  party  in  a  divorce,   or 
to  parties  once  divorced  seeking  to  be  united  again. 

Concurred  iu.      Vide  Message  House  of  Bishops  No.  67. 
That  the  consideration  ot  the  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Canons  (on 
the  conduct  of  of  Public  Worship,  &c.)  be  made  the  order  of  the  day 
for  Tuesday,  Oct.  27. 
That  no  new  subject  be  entertained  by  this  House  after  this  day 
That  the  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Cauuns  on  the  Conduct  of  Pubhc 
Worship  and  the  Report  of  a  Minority  of  said  Committee  be  printed 
under  care  of  the  Committee  on  Canons. 
That  the  consideration  of  certain  resolutions  (providing  for  the  spiritual 
wants  of  emigiants  to  Alaska,  with  a  due  regard  to  the  rights  and 
principles  of  the  Russian  Church)  be  postponed  until  to-morrow. 
That  the  House  adjourn. 


That  the  Minutes  be  approved.Jg^         '  '' 

That  the  Uouse  does  not  concur  in  the  resolution  contained  in  Message 
No.  34  from  the  the  Uouse  of  Bishops,  (amending  clause  [2]  of  Sec- 
tion III.  of  Canon  6  of  Title  III.)  "of  Congregations  in  Foreign 
Lands." 

That  certain  resolutions  reported  by  the  Committee  on  Canons  be  adopt- 
ed (1st,  that  it  is  inexpedient  to  change  the  title  of  the  Uouse  to 
"  Uouse  of  Deputies"' ;  2d,  that  it  is  inexpedient  to  grant  the  prayer  of 
the  memorialists  asking  for  hturgic  relaxation  ;  3d,  that  it  is  inexpe- 
dient to  grant  the  prdyer  of  the  memorialists  who  ask  an  amendment 
of  Section  6  of  Canon  5  of  Title  I.) 

That  a  resolution  (authorizing  the  use  of  "  Hymns  for  Church  and 
Home,"  and  "  Hymns,  Ancient  and  Modem,"  with  the  Bishop's  con- 
sent,) be  adopted.  Concurred  in  with  amendments.  Vide  Message 
Uouse  of  Bishops,  No.  57.  Amendments  concurred  in  by  Uouse  of 
Deputies.      Vide  Message  House  of  Deputies,  No.  7. 

That  it  be  referred  to  a  Joint  Committee  to  take  into  consideration  the 
Psalms  in  Metre,  with  the  Hymns,  and  to  report  to  next  Convention 
such  alterations  and  additions  as  they  may  think  expedient.  Con- 
curred in.  Viue  Message  Uouse  of  Bishops,  No.  82  Committee  an- 
nounced— vide  Message  House  of  Bishops,  No.  80--Bishops  Clark,  Be- 
dell, and  Coxe,  Rev.  Drs.  Huntington  and  Uowe,  and  Mr.  Henry  E. 
Pierrepont. 

That  the  amendment  to  Section  I.  of  Canon  14  of  Title  I.  (proposed  by 
the  Conmiittee  on  the  state  of  the  Chui-ch)  be  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Canons. 

That  the  Committee  on  the  State  of  the  Church  be  discharged  from  fur- 
ther consideration  of  a  proposed  requirement  of  the  enumeration  of 
the  Baptised  and  Confirmed  within  the  territorial  limits  of  each  parish. 

That  the  House  concur  in  the  resolutions  contained  in  Message  No.  48 
from  the  Uouse  of  Bishops  (1st,  appointing  a  Joint  Committee  to  pre- 
pare and  report  to  the  next  General  Convention  a  version  of  the 
Prayer  Book  in  German  ;  2d,  and  one  in  French  ;  3d,  and  cu-  in  Swe- 
dish). 

That  this  Uouse  concur  in  the  resolution  contained  in  Message  No.  49 
from  the  Uouse  of  Bishops  (authorizing  the  Joint  Committee  on  the 
Standard  Bible  to  proceed  with  the  pubUcation  of  the  same  as  soon  as 
funds  are  obtained). 

That  the  resolutions  accompanying  the  Report  of  the  Russo-Greek  Com- 
mittee be  adopted. 

That  the  Rev.  Dr.  Fulton  of  Georgia  be  added  to  the  said  Committee  in 
place  of  Bishop  Young. 

That  the  resolutions  accompanying  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  the 
Domestic  and  Foreign  Missionary  Society  be  adopted. 

That  so  much  of  the  report  of  said  Missionary  Society  as  relates  to  the 
Freedmen"s  Commission  be  referred  to  the  Board  of  Missions  for  its 
consideration. 

That  this  House  concur  in  the  resolution  contained  in  Message  No.  44 
from  the  House  of  Bishops,  appointing  Joint  Committee  on  Theologi- 
cal Education. 

That  the  Uouse  concur  in  the  Amendment  proposed  in  Message  No.  62 
from  the  Uouse  of  Bishops  (announcing  concurrence  in  the  Message  of 
the  House  of  Deputies,  No.  44,  in  relation  to  the  insertion  of  a  not«  in 
Standard  Piuyer  Book  respecting  the  alterations  made  in  the  plates 
thereof),  with  the  amendment  "  that  the  alterations  referred  to  be 
specified." 

That  a  resolution  reported  by  the  Committee  on  Canons  on  the  use  of 
Hymns  be  adopted.  Concurred  in  with  amendments.  Vide  Message 
Uouse  of  Bishops  No.  57. 

That  the  Committee  on  Rubrical  Discrepancies  be  continued  and  in- 
structed to  report  to  the  Joint  Committee  on  the  Standard  Prayer 
Book. 

That  a  revised  copy  of  the  Digest  of  the  Canons  be  prepared  and  pub- 
lished. 

On  motion,  the  Uouse  adjourned. 

NINETEENTH    DAY.  ** 

That  the  Minutes  be  approved. 

That  the  House  concur  in  resolution  communicated  in  Message  U.  B., 
No.  47,  (appointing  committee  on  the  part  of  the  Bishops,  to  ar- 
range for  closing  services). 

That  the  Uouse  does  not  concur  in  the  amendment  of  Section  I.,  Canon 
10,  Title  I.,  as  proposed  in  Message  U.  B.,  No.  34,  (concerning  foreign 
clergymen). 

That  the  Committee  on  Canons  be  discharged  from  further  considera- 
tion of  the  question  of  making  it  imperative  that  standing  commit- 
tees of  new  dioceses  should  be  composed  of  an  equal  number  of  cler- 
gymen and  laymen. 

That — the  House  of  Bishops  concurring — Section  I.  of  Canon  14  of 
Title  1.,  be  amended  by  inserting  after  the  words  "  residence  only," 
the  words  following,  tu  wit :  "  and  also,  with  particulars  of  time  and 
place,  of  all  ministers  belonging  to  the  Diocese,  who  have  been  or- 
dained to  the  Deaconate  or  the  Priesthood,  or  have  been  deposed,  or 
have  died,  since  the  preceding  General  Convention.''  Concurred  in, 
vide  Mess.  H.  B.,  No.  75. 

That  the  Rev.  Dr.  Geo.  E.  Hare  and  Mr.  James  Pott  be  appointed  to  fill 
vacancies  in  joint  committee  to  examine  proof-sheets  of  Standard 
Bible.  W 

That  the  House  proceed  to  the  consideration  of  unfinished  business  ot 
yesterday,  (to  wit,  the  motion  to  postpone  indefinitely  the  amend- 
ment [being  tha  resolutions  accompanying  the  minority  report  on 
ritual,  &C.1  to  the  resolution  accompanying  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Canons,  on  the  conduct  of  pubhc  worship,  &c.) 

That  the  nomination  of  the  Committee  on  Canons,  of  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Uaight  and  Mr.  H.  Fish,  LL.  D.,  to  certify  changes  in  the  canons 
made  at  this  session,  be  confirmed. 

That  the  whole  matter  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Canons  (being  the 
inquiry  as  to  the  expediency  of  establishing  Missionary  Organi^atiOD.* 


219 


under  Missionary  Bishoprics  within  the  limits  of  organized  diocesps) 
be  postponed  until  the  next    General  Convention. 
That  this  House  concur  in  the  Preamble  and  Resolution  communicated    , 

to  this  House  in  Message  H.  B.  No.  66,  (concerning  Alaska). 
That  thie  House  concur  in  the  Preamble  and  Resolutions  communica- 
ted to  this  House  on  Message  H.  B.  No.  68,  (concerning  death  of  the    , 
MetropoHtan  of  (Canada)  and  the  resolutions  communicated  in  Mess- 
age n.  B.  No.  57,    (amending  resolutions   communicated  by  U.  D.  in 
their  Message  No.  66,  concerning  use  of  Hymns)  to  wit: 
Resolved,  The  House  of  Bishops  concurring,  that  it  be  and  is  hereby 
declared    lawful — until  a  revisal  and    enlargement  of  the  collection  of 
Hymns   now  set  forth  for  use  in  this  Church  shall  have  been  made  and 
duly  authorized — that  in  any  diocese,  in  addition  to  those  already  al- 
lowed.   Hymns   from    the  volume  entitled   ''Hymns  for   Church    and 
Home,"  or  from  that  entitled  "Hymns,  Ancient  and  Modern,"  may  be 
licensed  for  use  by   the  Bishop  of  the  same. 
That  Message  H.  B.  No.  63,  bp  referred   to   the   Committee  on    Canons 

(communicating  a  new  *'anon  on  Consecration  of  Churches.) 
That  the  resolution  under  consideration  as  amended  be  adopted  to  wit  : 

1,  Resolved.  That  the  House  of  Bishops  be  request,ed  fo  set  forth  for 
consideration  and  adoption  by  the  next  General  Convention  such  ad- 
ditional Rubrics  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  as  in  their  judgment 
may  be  deemed  necessary - 

2,  Resolved,  That  meanwhile  in  all  matters  doubtful  reference  should 
be  made  to  the  ordinary  and  no  charges  should  be  made  against  the 
godly  counsel  and  judgment  of  the  Bishops. 

3,  Resolved.  That  copies  of  the  reports  of  the  majority  and  mi- 
nority of  the  Committee  on  Canons  be  transmitted  to  the  House  of 
Bishops 

That  the  SecretaryFbe  directed  to  procure  a  sufficient  number  of  the  ver- 
batim report  of  the  debates  of  this  Convention  to  supply  one  copy 
to  the  Standing  Committee  of  every  diocese  in  this  Church. 

That  the  clergymen  and  laymen  nominated  to  this  House  by  the  House 
of  Bishops  as  members  of  the  Board  of  Missions  be  elected  thereto. 

That  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  unfinished  Business  be  referred  to 
the  Committee  on  Canons. 

That  this  House  respectfully  return  tro  the  House  of  Bishops  the  list  of 
Trustees  of  the  General  Theological  Seminary  sent  hack  by  that  House 
with  information  that  it  is  impossible  to  submit  a  more  correct  list. 

That  the  whole  matter  (the  proposal  for  a  Committee  of  Conference  on 
the  proposed  amendment  of  Section  V,  Canon  13,  Title  I,  non-con- 
curred in  by  House  of  Bishops — concerning  election  of  assistant 
Bishops)  be  laid  on  the  table. 

That  the  House  adjourn. 

TWENTIETH    DAT. 

That  the  minutes  be  approved. 

That  this  House  has  heard  with  profound  regret  of  the  death  of  the 
Arch-Bishop  of  Canterbury,  and  communicates  to  the  House  of 
Bishops  its  desire  to  join  with  them  in  expressions  of  regard  and  re- 
spect for  his  memory. 

That  the  action  of  the  General  Convention  in  regard  to  the  death  of  the 
Arch-Bishop  of  Canterbury,  be  communicated  at  once  by  telegraph 
and  by  mail  to  the  Bishop  of  London. 

That  the  Canon  on  the  Consecration  of  Churches  (being  that  commu- 
nicated to  this  House  in  Message  H.  B.  No.  63,)  be  referred  back  to 
the  Committee  on  Canons. 

That  an  additional  resolution  on  the  same  subject  be  referred  to  the 
same  Committee. 

That  the  House  concur  in  resolution  communicated  in  Message  H.B. 
No.  77,  (continuing  Joint  Committee  on  Friendly  Intercourse  with 
the  Church  in  Sweden.) 

That  the  resolution  communicated  in  Message  H.  B.  No.  73,  {concern- 
ing salary  of  Secretary  of  House  of  Bishops)  be  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  expenses. 

That  the  thanks  of  this  House  be  tendered  to  the  President. 

That  the  thanks  of  this  House  be  tendered  to  the  Secretaries  and  Treas- 
urer. 

That  thanks  be  presented  to  Churchmen  of  New  York  and  vicinity  for 
generous  hospitality. 

That  thanks  are  due  to  the  Bishop  of  New  York,  and  clergy  and  laity. 

That  this  Convention  acknowledges  the  obligatiooB  to  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Ogilby. 


That  thankabe  tendered  to  the  Rector,  Wardens,  and  Vestry  of  Trinity 

and  Calvary  Churches  and  the  Church  of  the  Transflgur.ition. 
That  when  this  House  adjourn  it  adjourn  to  meet  the  House  of  Bishops 

to  hear  the  Pastoral  Letter  and  to  join  in  closing  services. 
That  the  Secretary  return  thanks  of  this  House  to  the  several    Railway 

and  Steamboat  Companies  offering  return  tickets. 
That  the  thanks  of  this  House  are  tendered  to  the     Hon.    James  Kelly 

for  postal  facilities. 
That  the  thanks  of  this  House  are  due  to  Mr.  George  Woodward  for  ser- 
vices in  connection  with  the  postal  deliveries  for  this  Convention. 
That  the  action  proposed  in  certain    memorials  from    several    dioceses 
(touching  a  new  version  of  the  Xicene  Creed)  is  inexpedient  a  this  time. 
That  ten  copies  of  the  Journal  of  the  Proceedings  of  this  Convention  be 

placed  in  the  hands  of  the  Russo  Greek  Committee. 
That  the  President  of  the  House  sign  this  telegram  to  be  transmitted  to 
the  Bishop  of  London  on  the  death  of  the  Arch-Hishop  of  Canterbury, 
and  that  the  Secretary  be  authorized  to  forward  the  same. 
That  a  resolution  (proposing  suspension  of  the  rule  forhidding    the  in- 
troduction of  new  matter)  be  laid  on  the  table. 
That  the  Canon  on  the  Consecration  of  Churches  reported  by  the  Com- 
mittee on  Canons  with  amendment  be  adopted  to  wit : 

Title  I.  Canon  — .     Of  the  Consecration  of  Churches. 
§1.  No  Church  or  Chapel  shall  be  consecrated  until    the  Bishop  shall 
have  been  sufficiently  certified  that  the  building  and  ground  on  which 
it  is  erected,  have  been  fully  paid  for,  and  are  free  from  lien  or  other 
incumbrance. 

§2.  It  shall  not  be  lawful  for  any  Vestry,  Trustees,  or  other  body, 
authorized  by  law  of  any  State  or  Territory  to  hold  property  for  any 
Diocese,  Parish  or  Congregation,  to  encumber  or  alienate  any  consecra- 
ted  Church  or  Chapel  without  the  previous  consent  of  the  Bishop,  act- 
ing with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Standing  Committee  of  the  diocese 
in  which  such  Church  or  Ch,ipel  be  situated,  Provided,  that  this  Sec- 
tion shall  not  he  operative  in  any  State  with  the  laws  of  which  relating 
to  the  taking  and  holding  of  property  by  religious  corporations,  the 
same  may  conflict. 

§3-  No  consecrated  Church  or  Chapel  shall  be  removed,  taken  down, 
or  otherwise  disposed  of  forany  "unhallowed,  worldly  or  common  use" 
without  the  previous  consent  of  the  Bishop,  acting  with  the  advice  and 
consent  of  the  Standing  Committee  of  the  Diocese  in  which  said  Church 
or  Chapel  may  be  situate.     Concurred  in  fifte  Message  H-  B.  No.  78- 
That  a  resolution  reported  by  the  Committee  on  (.'anons  as  amended  (to 
wit:  That  the  House  ot  Bishops  concurring,  in  the  judgment  of  this 
Convention  it  is  improper  to  sell  or  lease  any  pew  or  seat  in  any  conse- 
crated Church  or  Chapel  by  public  sale  held  within  the  walls  of  such 
Church  or  Chapel  and  that  the  same  be  published  \vith  the  Digest)  be 
adopted.     By  oversightnot  communicated  to  the  House  of  Bishops. 
That  a  communication  from  the  Rev.  President  of   Columbia  College  be 

referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Standard  Prayer  Book. 
That  the  Secretary  furnish  bound  copies  of  the  Journal  to   members  of 

this  House  on  their  payment  of  the  cost  of  binding. 
That  the  address  of  the  President  be  entered  on  the  minutes. 
That  this  House  concur  in  resolution  communicated  in  Me.-sage  H.  B 

No.  81,  (authorizing  purchase  of  sets  of  Journals.) 
That  this  Hou.'^e  concur  in  resolution  communicated  in  Message  H.  B. 

No  79,  (concerning  preparntiou  of  Digest  of  Resolutions.) 
That  a  committee  wait  on  th.-  House  of  Bishops  and  inform  them  that 

this  House  has  compU-trd  its  business. 
That  this  House  take  a  rece.-^s  till  3  p.  m. 

That  the  Rev.  Dr.  Wm.  Cooper  Mead  be   appointed  temporary  Chairman. 
That  the  name  and  title  of  the  ''Freedmen's  Commission"  be  changed 

to  '-Home  Missionary  Commission  for  Colored  People." 
That  this  Ho\ise  proceed  to  the  election  of  a  Missionary  Bishop  of  Arizona 

and  Nevada  on  the  nomination  made  by  the  House  of  Bishops. 
That  the  House  unite  in  singing  the  GUria  in  Excehts  Deo. 
That  the  House  proceed  to  sign  the  testimonials  of  the  Missionary  Bisbnp 

elect. 

That  the  Rev.  Dr.  Paddock  and  Mr.  Lucius  B.  Otis  be  appointed  members 

on  the  part  of  this  House  on  the  Joint  Committee  on  Friendly  Relations 

with  the  Swedish  Church. 

That  this  House  continue  in  session  till  its  business  shall  be  concluded. 

That  the  Secretary  transmit  the  testimonial  of  the    Missionary    Bi^hni. 

elect  to  the  House  of  Bishops. 
That  the  House  adjourn 


221 


INDEX 


SPEAKERS. 
Adams,  D.  D.,  Rev.  AV.    6,  9,  13,  23,  26,  31,  32,  41,  57, 

73,85,91,94,101,104,   lOC,    114,    124,   135,    154, 
163,  193,  195,  197,  198,  203,  205,  206 
Adams,  Rev.  W.  F.  -  -  -  1"!' 

Andrews,  D.  D.,  Rev.  C.  W.  49,  50,  51,  73,  S7,  9U,  H  4, 

138,  151.  163,  175. 
Banister,  Rev.  J.  M.  -  -  -  151 

Barbour,  1\L-.  B.  Johnson  -  -  95,     96 

Battle,  Mr.  W.  II.  12,  16,  33,  43,  62,   73,   74,   92,   112, 

125,  126,  130,  133,  134,  146,  146,  1-51,   155 
Beardsley,  D.  D.,  Rev.  E.  E.     -  -     130,134,202 

Beers,  Rev.  H.  W.  -  -  68,69,110 

Benedict,  Rev.  Samuel  -  -  -  33 

Breck,  Rev.  Charles  22,  93,  97,  131,  137,  171,  2nS 

Burr,  D.  D.,  Rev.  E.  -  -  -  171 

Cass,  Mr.  G.  W.  -  -  -  -  91 

Churchill,  Mr.  -  -  -       62,69,113,    144 

Clark,  D.  D.,  Rev.  J.  L.  -  -  -  89 

Clark,  Rev.  W.  H.  -  -  -  29,  138,   14.5 

Clements,  Rev.  S.  -  -  -  -  89 

Comstock,  Mr.  G.  F.  -  -     61,  84,  139,   155 

Conyngham,  Judge  8,  21,  23,  69,  72,  81,  87,  93,  94, 1.52, 

■  167,  168,  169 
Corbett,  Rev.  S.  -  -  -      78,  131,  158 

Cornwall,  Mr.  Wm.  25,  26,  27,  114,  153,  180,  181,  194, 
Craik,  D.  D.,  Rev.  James  (opening  address)  4,  84,  85, 
94,  95,  9S,  108,  125,  131,  138,  146,  148,  152,  1.59, 
107,  193,  195,  198,— (closing  address)  205 
Crane,  D.  D.,  Rev.  S.  A.  -  25,  26,  112,  113,  130,  131 
Dashiell,  Rev.  E.  F.  -  -  -     102,180 

DeKoven,  D.  D.,  Rev.  James     146,  147,  174,  191,   2ii7 
Delano,  Mr.  Columbus       -  -  -  -       69 

DeMill,  Rev.  P.  E.      -  -  -  -  132 

Doe,  Mr.  J.  B.      -  -  -  -  -       91 

Fairbanks,  Mr.  G.  R.  -  -         7,9,54,    179 

Farnsworth,  Mr.  C.  B.       -  -     .         -  -      145 

Fish,  Mr.  Hamilton     12,  13,  48,  69,  129,  132,  148,  202, 

207 

Fogg,  Mr.  Francis  B.  -  -  ■  128 

Gadsden,  Rev.  C.  P.  7ft,  77,  86,  91,  100,  164,   185 

Gasmann,  Rev.  J.  G.         -  -  -  61,  79 

Goodwin,  D.  D.,  Rev.  D.  R.  8,  14, 17,  25,  33,  35,  36,  37, 

62,   76,  83,   84,  85,  86,  93,  97,  108,  113,  128,  136, 

140,   144,    152,  155,    158,  161,162,  166,175,188, 

195,  206 

Gordon,  Mr.  G.  A.  -  -  30,  51,  52,  53 

Gray,  Rev.  W.  C.        -  -  -  -  100 

Haight,  D.  D.  Rev.   B.  I.   «,  20,  27,  31,  45,  58,  63,  64, 

65,  69,  74,  76,  82,  83,  85,  87,  90,  91,  94,  95,  99,  100, 

101,116,117,124,129,    135,    143,144,    153,154, 

161,164,  170,  171,  193,  196,198,199,  200,206,208 

Hallam,  D.  D.,  Rev.  R.  A.  -  -  -      69 

Hanckel,  Rev.  J.  S.      -  -  -         45,139,190 

Hanson,  Rev.  F.  R.  -  -  -  208 

Hare,  D.  D.,  Rev.  G.  E.  77,  83,  93,    99,    116,   117,    120 

133,  165,  181,  200,  202,  204,  207 
Harrold,  Rev.  J.  A.     -  -  -  -  157 

Hcnshaw,  Rev.  Daniel      -  -  -         200,  203 

Hodges,  D.  D.,  Rev.  J.  S.  B.  -  -     74,    199 

Houghton,  Mr.  Geo.  F.     -  -  -  -    132 

Howe,  D.  D.,  Rev.  M.  A.  DeW.  10,  19,  30,    46,  60,  75, 
76,93,95,97,102,112,116,   126,    127,    131,    158, 
160,  165,  193,  196,  197,  198,  199,  204 
Hubbard,  D.  D.,  Rev.  I.  G.  -  132,  152,   204 

Iluntin^on,  D.  D.,  Rev.  F.  D.  -  -    136,177,   178 

James,  Rev.  G.  N.  -  -  103,  187 

Johnson,  Mr.  Wm.  Samuel       -  -     130,  142,  150 


Laba^h,  Rev.  J.  P.         -  141,155,183,196,204 

Lacey,  Mr.  Geo.  S.  -  -  100,   131 

Lawson,  Rev.  T.  B.       -  -  -  -  104 

Littlejohn,  1).  D.,  Rev.  A.  N.    6,  11,  34,  44,  68,  91,  94, 

103,  106,  115,  161,  192,  193,  206 

Mahan,  D.  D.,  Rev.  Milo  25,  42,  62,  94,  97,  99,  100,  105 

120,  125,  130,  135,  141,  151,    156,    166,    189,     193 

204,  205 

Marple,  Rev.  A.  A.  -  73,  79,  114,  143,  144 

Martin,  Rev.  T.  M.       -  -  -  129,  143 

Mason,  D.I).,  Rev.  R.S.  70,  71,92,  103,  122,145,165,170 

Massie,  Mr.  N.  H.  -  -  -  134 

McMasters,  D.  D.,  Rev.  S.  Y.  -  -  60 

McCrady,  Mr.  E.    61,  69,  120,  140,  141,  166,  172,  198, 

Mead,  D.  D.,  Rev.  William  Cooper  8,  10,  25,  28,  45,  55, 

74,  80,  90,  95,  105,  110,  125,  129,    138,    146,    152, 

lol,    193,   190,    197,    200,  202,  203,  204,  205,  206, 

207 

Meads,  Mr.  Orlando  -  -  -  132 

Meigs,  Jr.,  Mr.  Henry     -  -  -  92.  94 

Moore,  Rev.  J.  -  -  -  -  152 

Mulchahey,  D.  D.,  Rev.  J.  59,  92,  95,  98,  116,  118,  128, 

129,  175, 
Newton,  Rev.  William  -  -  -  102 

Norton,  D.    D.,    Rev.  G.  H.  26,  31,  41,  42,  84,  86,    91, 

104 
Otis,   Mr.  L.  B.         11,17,  29,  43,  73,  83,  90,  146,    195 
Paddock,  D.  D.,  Rev.  B.  H.  53,  161, 164, 182,  193,  204 
Parker,  D.  D.,  Rev.  S.  P.  -  -  -        81 

Parsons,  Mr.  C.  C.     -  -  -  -         8,   42 

Perkins,    Rev.  E.  T.         -  -  74,  90,  137,   188 

Peterkin,  D.  D.,  Rev.  J.  11,  88,  113,  150,  158,   165 

Pierce,  D.D.,  Rev.  H.  N.   106,  127,  129,  1.^3,  158,  162, 

195 

Pinckney,  T).  D.,  Rev.  C.  C.     -  -  -  176 

Pinkney,  D.  D.,  Rev.  Wm.  180 

Pitkin,  D.  D.,  Rev.  T.  C.         -  10,  16,  105,    163 

Richardson,  Rev.  W.  R.     -  -  -  li'3 

Rogers,  Rev.  B.  46,  47,  48,  74,  76,  82,  92,127,  166.   198 

Ruggles,  Mr.  S.  B.    8,  10,  17,  28,  29,  38,  39,  56,  72,  98, 

99,  105,  112,  116,  119,   132,    133,    137,    142,    144, 

146.  150,  152,  166,    169,    181,    184,  193,  196,  206, 

207' 

Rylance,  D.  D.,  Rev.  J.  H.  85,  86,  95,  96,  97,  100,  106, 

133,  136,  137 

Shattuck.M.  D.,  Mr.  G.  C.  55,  58,  77,  96,  97,   185 

Sheffey,  Mr.  H   W.  -  82,84,92,94,95,111 

Shelton,  D.  D.,  Rev.  Wm.  -         73,  74,  79,  99,   206 

Smith,  Mr.  J.  J.  Pringle,    -  -     131,  144,  146,  166 

Spauhling,  Rev.  J.  F.     -  -  -  -         180 

Stevenson,  Mr.  J.  W.  -  -  12,  91,  127 

StringCellow,  Jr.,  Rev.  H.         -  -  -         181 

Stubbs,  D.  D.,  Rev.  Alfred  34,  76,  82,  83,  96,  102,  105, 

134,  138,  146,  149,  174 

Taylor,  Mr.  Tazewell         71,  92,  94,  112,  123,  137,    138 

Todd,  Mr. 71 

Trowbridge,  Mr.  C.  C.  -  -  -  81 

Tustin,  D.  D.,  Rev.  J.  P.  -  -  -       111 

Van  Deusen,  D.  D.,  Rev.  E.  M.  94,  183,  193,  205,   206 
Watson,   I).  D.,  Rev.  A.  A.  -  -  -     69,   194 

Welsh,  Mr.  Wm.  11,  26,  44,  58,  72,  73,  79,  93,  132, 135, 

139,  145,  146,   148,  152,  162,  165,   186,   199,  201, 

202 
Wheat,  D.  I).,  Rev.  J.  T.  -  -  80,  99 

White,  Rev.  William  -  -  -  203 

Wilder,  Mr.  E.  T.  -  -  -  -        18 

Williams,  Rev.  Wm.  C.  -  -  180,  194 

Wyatt,  Rev.  C.  B.     -  -  93,139,177,187 


222 


SUBJECTS. 
Alaska,  .....  igj 

Bishops — Assistant        72,  73,  74,  92,  94,  197,  198,    199 
Bishops — Divine  Authority  of       -  -  33,   34 

Bishops — Increasing  the  number  of     45,46,47,50,   51 
Board  of  Missions         -  -  -  -  115 

Changes — In  Prayer  Book  -  71,112,   152 

Churches— Consecration  of  92,  104,  129,  130,  133,  134, 

135,  200 
Church  Unit}'  .... 

Clergymen — From  other  bodies     - 
Clerical  Support  -  .  -     95,  96,  9  7, 

Committees — List  of  Standing 
Constitution — Article  V  -  -  - 

Convention — In  Consecrated  Churches    -         132, 


"Council" — Instead  of  "Convention" 

38,  39,  40,  41,  43,  44 
Creed — Nicene 

Debates — Churchman's  report  of  - 
Deputies — Decreasing  number  of 
Dioceses — Formation  of  new 
Divine  Worship — Conduct  of 
Divorce  -  -  .104 

Education — Christian 
Federate  Council 
Holy  Orders — Examinations  for 
House  of  Bishops 
Ilyninody 
Intrusion — Clerical 
Italian  Reform  IVIovement      -  -r 
Lay  Readers 
Lessons  for  Lent 
Liturgies — In  foreign  languages 
Members — List  of  .  - 

Memorials — Presentation  of   - 
Ministers — Officiating 
Morris,  B.e\.  B.  W.  Elected  Bishop, 
Music — In  Convention 
Music — In  Services  at  Trinity  Chapel 
Nebraska — Petitions  to  be  admitted 

Admitted 
Nevada — Bishop  of      - 
Obituary  Resolutions 


105 
105 
115 
5,6 
6 
133 
10,  29,  32,  33,  35, 


72,  106,  129, 
131, 


154 

197 

56 

45,  48-55,  58-65 

21 

137,  144  15^--  156, 

106-112 

7,  30,  31,  116-129 

75,  77,   81 

115 

-    104,162,  166 

69,  83-92,  100-104 

105,  135,  136, 

27,  113. 


131, 


99, 
93 


205, 


137 

134 

99 

153 

3,4 

7 

100 

,   94 

132 

20 

6 

10 

209 

9 


Obituary — Archbishop  of  Canterbury  -  199 

Officiating — Persons  not  Ministers  25,  26,  27,  112,  113, 

114,  130,  131 

Oneida  Indians         -  .  .  .      146,   1  g 

Pastoral  Letter,  -  -  -  209,    212 

Prayers — Occasional  -  -  -  82,   83 

"Presiding  Bishop  of  this  Church"       -  -  57 

Provincial  Council — Memorials  for  -  7 

Provincial  System         -  -         95,98,99,116,   129 

Resolutions — Force  of         -  -  -       138,  140 

Ritual  .  -  -  .  167,    197 

Ritualism    .  -  -  .  .  23 

Ritualism — Majority  Report     ...  159 

Ritualism — Minority  Report  -  -  160 

Schools — Church  -  ...  68 

Selling — Pews         -  .  .  -  202 

Sermon — Bishop  of  Delaware,  Resolution  to  print         7 

Services — Opening      -  .  -  .  4 

Services — Closing  ....     209 

Sessions,  —First  Day  .  -  .4 

Second  Day,     -  -  .  5 

Third  Day,  .  -  -       10 

Fourth  Dav,      -  -  -  18 

Fifth  Day,"  -  .  .21 

t'i.xth  Day,        ...  24 

Seventh  Day,  -  -  -       33 

Eighth  Day,     -  -  .  ^44 

Ninth  Day,  -  .  .55 

Tenth  Day,      ...  66 

Eleventh  Day,         -  .  -       70 

Twelth  Day,    -  .  .  75 

Thirteenth  Day,      -  -  .92 

Fourteenth  Day,  -  .  99 

Fifteenth  Day,        -  -  -     lU 

Sixteenth  Day,  -  131 

Seventeenth  Day,    -  -  -     145 

Eighteenth  Day,  -  -  162 

Nineteenth  Day,     -  -  -     181 

Twentieth  Day,  -  -  199 

Shorter  Services,  ...     157 

Standard  Bible,  -  -  •  131 

Trial  of  Ministers,  -  135,143,144,145 

Western  New  York — Division  of  Diocese  of  28 


